Discussion:
Pronunciation report
Add Reply
Jerry Friedman
2021-03-06 00:27:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
We had Professional Development Day today, all about equity in higher
education. Lots of different speakers. I heard the following
pronunciations.

"dayta" from everyone who used the word, except that one person said
"datta" and immediately corrected it to "dayta"

"recoup" and "recouping" like "recoo(ing)"

"AAVE" like "Ave [Maria]". Hm, maybe that's not the same everywhere.
"AHvay". /'ɑveɪ/. (Make that last vowel a superscript if you want.)
--
Jerry Friedman
Stefan Ram
2021-03-06 01:00:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
"AHvay". /'ɑveɪ/. (Make that last vowel a superscript if you want.)
Most agree that, in English diphthongs, the first part is longer.

Often this is not recorded in writing.

I am aware of two different ways it is recorded:

1st) The first vowel is marked as "half long".

eˑɪ

2nd) The second vowel is marked as "non-syllabic".

eɪ̯

An additional remark:

According to Luciano Canepari, the first vowel in
this diphthong actually is more open, so he writes:

ᴇˑɪ

. [ᴇ] is just midway between [e] and [ɛ].

Thus, I write

alias
ˈᴇˑɪ li əs

basic
ˈbᴇˑɪ sɩk

designation
ˌd̺ᴇ zɩg ˈnᴇˑɪ ʃən

and so on.

An additional remark:

Canepari actually has a diaphonemic notation that uses
special diaphonems that give the pronunciation for both
his American and his British pronunciation.

The diaphoneme /ᴇɩ/ is [ᴇˑɪ] in both British and American
English. For another example:

failover
'fˈᴇɩl ˌσɷ vəɹ̣ (diaphonemes) 
'fˈᴇˑɪl ˌσˑɷ vɚ (GA phones) 
'fˈᴇˑɪl ˌɜˑɷ vɐ (BR phones)

.
Stefan Ram
2021-03-07 13:25:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
"AHvay". /'ɑveɪ/. (Make that last vowel a superscript if you want.)
eˑɪ
eɪ̯
ᴇˑɪ
Let me add that a superscript usually denotes a coarticulation.

For example, an american r usually is rounded at the start of
a word. This can be written as a w-coarticulation (in a narrow
phonetic transcription). "red":

ɹʷɛd

.
Sam Plusnet
2021-03-06 03:26:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
We had Professional Development Day today, all about equity in higher
education.
Strange. Inequality is at the very core of "Higher" Education.
--
Sam Plusnet
Wales, UK
Peter Moylan
2021-03-06 04:07:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Jerry Friedman
We had Professional Development Day today, all about equity in
higher education.
Strange. Inequality is at the very core of "Higher" Education.
Slightly different words, with slippery meanings.

We hold this truth to be self-evident, that all men are created unequal.
Nobody's going to dispute that. Some will succeed at higher education,
some won't.

In my country, at least, access to higher education is also unequal.
Some can afford the fees, many can't.

But equity, now, that's a fish of a different barrel. In my mind that
measures the proportion of one's ownership of an asset. And it's rarely
equal for all investors, so equity does not mean equality. Still, the
word has been used in so many different ways that Wikipedia has to
devote an entire disambiguation page to it.

Jerry's day was probably about educational equity. That's another kind
of inequality. Instead of treating everyone equally, you give privileged
treatment to disadvantaged groups.
--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org
Jerry Friedman
2021-03-06 04:56:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Jerry Friedman
We had Professional Development Day today, all about equity in
higher education.
Strange. Inequality is at the very core of "Higher" Education.
Slightly different words, with slippery meanings.
We hold this truth to be self-evident, that all men are created unequal.
Nobody's going to dispute that. Some will succeed at higher education,
some won't.
In my country, at least, access to higher education is also unequal.
Some can afford the fees, many can't.
But equity, now, that's a fish of a different barrel. In my mind that
measures the proportion of one's ownership of an asset. And it's rarely
equal for all investors, so equity does not mean equality. Still, the
word has been used in so many different ways that Wikipedia has to
devote an entire disambiguation page to it.
Jerry's day was probably about educational equity. That's another kind
of inequality. Instead of treating everyone equally, you give privileged
treatment to disadvantaged groups.
I didn't see much of that, though I wouldn't have been surprised. It was
more about that "minoritized" (new to me) groups have extra barriers
to face and trying to remove them. I had to miss some parts (I'll watch
the recordings), but in what I was present for, there weren't a lot of
concrete suggestions.

Two concrete suggestions that I've been told narrow the gap between
non-Asian students of color and white-and-Asian students, according
to studies, are:

Tell the class that tests have been checked and found free of cultural
bias, so all racial and ethnic groups do equally well on them. (There is
no need for this to have been done, though the teacher should probably
make sure there's no blatant bias.) This is supposed to address beliefs
that one's own group is inferior at academics or that the deck is stacked
against them.

Have the students write a one-to-two-page essay in each section of
the course on how the material is important to them. This is supposed
to address the difference between low-context cultures (e.g., northwest
European and their descendant cultures in North America and Australasia),
where many people value education in itself, and high-context cultures
(e.g., Native American and Hispanic), where people absorb the idea that
education is valued more for its practical benefits.
--
Jerry Friedman
Peter Moylan
2021-03-06 10:30:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Jerry Friedman
We had Professional Development Day today, all about equity in
higher education.
Strange. Inequality is at the very core of "Higher" Education.
Slightly different words, with slippery meanings.
We hold this truth to be self-evident, that all men are created
unequal. Nobody's going to dispute that. Some will succeed at
higher education, some won't.
In my country, at least, access to higher education is also
unequal. Some can afford the fees, many can't.
But equity, now, that's a fish of a different barrel. In my mind
that measures the proportion of one's ownership of an asset. And
it's rarely equal for all investors, so equity does not mean
equality. Still, the word has been used in so many different ways
that Wikipedia has to devote an entire disambiguation page to it.
Jerry's day was probably about educational equity. That's another
kind of inequality. Instead of treating everyone equally, you give
privileged treatment to disadvantaged groups.
I didn't see much of that, though I wouldn't have been surprised.
It was more about that "minoritized" (new to me) groups have extra
barriers to face and trying to remove them. I had to miss some
parts (I'll watch the recordings), but in what I was present for,
there weren't a lot of concrete suggestions.
Minoritized groups: those that used not to be a minority, but have
somehow been turned into a minority?
Post by Jerry Friedman
Two concrete suggestions that I've been told narrow the gap between
non-Asian students of color and white-and-Asian students, according
Tell the class that tests have been checked and found free of
cultural bias, so all racial and ethnic groups do equally well on
them. (There is no need for this to have been done, though the
teacher should probably make sure there's no blatant bias.) This is
supposed to address beliefs that one's own group is inferior at
academics or that the deck is stacked against them.
Have the students write a one-to-two-page essay in each section of
the course on how the material is important to them. This is
supposed to address the difference between low-context cultures
(e.g., northwest European and their descendant cultures in North
America and Australasia), where many people value education in
itself, and high-context cultures (e.g., Native American and
Hispanic), where people absorb the idea that education is valued
more for its practical benefits.
Sorry about the excessive quoting, but it was hard to know what to snip.

You're apparently doing better than we are. The most disadvantaged
minority here are indigenous Australians, but one rarely has to deal
with them at tertiary level. The big challenge is still getting the kids
to finish primary school. It's a generational problem: the children
aren't interested in schooling because their parents don't take it
seriously, and that problem will still exist in the next generation.
Breaking the cycle is not easy.

It's interesting that you mention Asian students. If they are children
of immigrants then they do better than white Australians in primary and
secondary school, because they work harder. But at tertiary level most
Asian students are non-residents, and they do worse than the Australians
on average. The reason for that is that the fees are high, so students
are being selected for wealth rather than ability. We used to get
excellent students from Hong Kong, but probably won't in future because
of the political situation there. We still get good students from
Singapore. But there are few other countries where the mindset is that
if you have the right uncle then you don't have to make an effort.

The sample size is still too low to know how African immigrants will do.

Of course covid-19 has altered all migration patterns. It will be
interesting to see whether Brexit gives us more Scots and Welsh and
Northern Irish.
--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org
Jerry Friedman
2021-03-06 14:39:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Jerry Friedman
We had Professional Development Day today, all about equity in
higher education.
Strange. Inequality is at the very core of "Higher" Education.
Slightly different words, with slippery meanings.
We hold this truth to be self-evident, that all men are created
unequal. Nobody's going to dispute that. Some will succeed at
higher education, some won't.
In my country, at least, access to higher education is also
unequal. Some can afford the fees, many can't.
But equity, now, that's a fish of a different barrel. In my mind
that measures the proportion of one's ownership of an asset. And
it's rarely equal for all investors, so equity does not mean
equality. Still, the word has been used in so many different ways
that Wikipedia has to devote an entire disambiguation page to it.
Jerry's day was probably about educational equity. That's another
kind of inequality. Instead of treating everyone equally, you give
privileged treatment to disadvantaged groups.
I didn't see much of that, though I wouldn't have been surprised.
It was more about that "minoritized" (new to me) groups have extra
barriers to face and trying to remove them. I had to miss some
parts (I'll watch the recordings), but in what I was present for,
there weren't a lot of concrete suggestions.
Minoritized groups: those that used not to be a minority, but have
somehow been turned into a minority?
I just learned that word last month (contrary to the impression I probably
gave you) and haven't seen an explanation. I suspect the idea is that
these are groups that are seen by the dominant culture as separate and
worth discriminating against. One example might be African Americans.
The first black workers who were brought here were legally indentured
servants with the same status as white indentured servants, but half a
century later, the colonies started passing laws defining black people
and restricting their rights, soon reaching the point of establishing
slavery.
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Jerry Friedman
Two concrete suggestions that I've been told narrow the gap between
non-Asian students of color and white-and-Asian students, according
[suggestions]
Post by Peter Moylan
Sorry about the excessive quoting, but it was hard to know what to snip.
You're apparently doing better than we are. The most disadvantaged
minority here are indigenous Australians, but one rarely has to deal
with them at tertiary level. The big challenge is still getting the kids
to finish primary school. It's a generational problem: the children
aren't interested in schooling because their parents don't take it
seriously, and that problem will still exist in the next generation.
Breaking the cycle is not easy.
As far as I know, no group here is that uninterested in schooling. It
probably helps that schools are free child care.
Post by Peter Moylan
It's interesting that you mention Asian students. If they are children
of immigrants then they do better than white Australians in primary and
secondary school, because they work harder. But at tertiary level most
Asian students are non-residents, and they do worse than the Australians
on average. The reason for that is that the fees are high, so students
are being selected for wealth rather than ability. We used to get
excellent students from Hong Kong, but probably won't in future because
of the political situation there. We still get good students from
Singapore. But there are few other countries where the mindset is that
if you have the right uncle then you don't have to make an effort.
There's nothing like that where I teach, because our fees are quite low
and our standards for admission are lower, that being one of the functions
of community colleges. It may be going on at our more prestigious
universities--though some the most prestigious have massive endowments
and brag that they offer enough financial aid that everyone is financially
capable of going there.

Most of the Asian undergrads I've known have been descendants, not
necessarily children, of immigrants. Not so for grad students.
--
Jerry Friedman
Jerry Friedman
2021-03-06 15:49:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Jerry Friedman
We had Professional Development Day today, all about equity in
higher education.
Strange. Inequality is at the very core of "Higher" Education.
Slightly different words, with slippery meanings.
We hold this truth to be self-evident, that all men are created
unequal. Nobody's going to dispute that. Some will succeed at
higher education, some won't.
In my country, at least, access to higher education is also
unequal. Some can afford the fees, many can't.
But equity, now, that's a fish of a different barrel. In my mind
that measures the proportion of one's ownership of an asset. And
it's rarely equal for all investors, so equity does not mean
equality. Still, the word has been used in so many different ways
that Wikipedia has to devote an entire disambiguation page to it.
Jerry's day was probably about educational equity. That's another
kind of inequality. Instead of treating everyone equally, you give
privileged treatment to disadvantaged groups.
I didn't see much of that, though I wouldn't have been surprised.
It was more about that "minoritized" (new to me) groups have extra
barriers to face and trying to remove them. I had to miss some
parts (I'll watch the recordings), but in what I was present for,
Minoritized groups: those that used not to be a minority, but have
somehow been turned into a minority?
I just learned that word last month (contrary to the impression I probably
gave you)
Wait, maybe it was in January.
Post by Jerry Friedman
and haven't seen an explanation. I suspect the idea is that
these are groups that are seen by the dominant culture as separate and
worth discriminating against. One example might be African Americans.
The first black workers who were brought here were legally indentured
servants with the same status as white indentured servants, but half a
century later, the colonies started passing laws defining black people
and restricting their rights, soon reaching the point of establishing
slavery.
...

I meant to add that I also heard some bad things about assimilation
yesterday--for instance, a Navajo colleague objecting to his children
being taught that they should shake hands firmly and look people in the
eye. That view might be hard to reconcile with "minoritized".
--
Jerry Friedman
Peter Moylan
2021-03-07 02:18:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
I meant to add that I also heard some bad things about assimilation
yesterday--for instance, a Navajo colleague objecting to his
children being taught that they should shake hands firmly and look
people in the eye. That view might be hard to reconcile with
"minoritized".
I don't think I ever learnt how to shake hands at school. That's the
sort of thing we learnt from parents, not from teachers.
--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org
Sam Plusnet
2021-03-07 03:02:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Jerry Friedman
I meant to add that I also heard some bad things about assimilation
yesterday--for instance, a Navajo colleague objecting to his
children being taught that they should shake hands firmly and look
people in the eye.  That view might be hard to reconcile with
"minoritized".
I don't think I ever learnt how to shake hands at school. That's the
sort of thing we learnt from parents, not from teachers.
My parents must have missed the lessons on teaching their children how
to shake hands.

Perhaps their parents are to blame?
--
Sam Plusnet
Wales, UK
Jerry Friedman
2021-03-07 05:09:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Jerry Friedman
I meant to add that I also heard some bad things about assimilation
yesterday--for instance, a Navajo colleague objecting to his
children being taught that they should shake hands firmly and look
people in the eye. That view might be hard to reconcile with
"minoritized".
I don't think I ever learnt how to shake hands at school. That's the
sort of thing we learnt from parents, not from teachers.
My parents must have missed the lessons on teaching their children how
to shake hands.
Mine didn't. "Look him right in the eye."
Post by Sam Plusnet
Perhaps their parents are to blame?
Probably true of my Navajo colleague. I imagine he had cultural reasons
for not teaching his children how to shake hands.

(The Navajo word for white people is "bilagáana", 'handshakers'. (In case
anybody's wondering, I believe the accent mark indicates high pitch, so
"áa" is a long vowel with descending pitch.))

Hispanic men around here usually do "daps" or just fist-bumps with each
other. Maybe in consequence, a lot of young men, including those I meet
at the gym who can bench-press a hundred pounds more than I ever could
and don't care who knows it, are nevertheless people who, in shaking
hands, shake hands with you like /that/. I've been tempted to offer to show
them how to shake hands with Anglo firmness, given that they want to
shake hands Anglo-style with me, but maybe that would have been culturally
inappropriate.

Not that I've been to a gym for about a year.
--
Jerry Friedman
Peter T. Daniels
2021-03-07 17:12:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
Hispanic men around here usually do "daps" or just fist-bumps with each
(Is that recent?)
Post by Jerry Friedman
other. Maybe in consequence, a lot of young men, including those I meet
at the gym who can bench-press a hundred pounds more than I ever could
and don't care who knows it, are nevertheless people who, in shaking
hands, shake hands with you like /that/.
Hark, an allusion! There ought to be something similar in *Patience*.
Post by Jerry Friedman
I've been tempted to offer to show
them how to shake hands with Anglo firmness, given that they want to
shake hands Anglo-style with me, but maybe that would have been culturally
inappropriate.
Not that I've been to a gym for about a year.
Jerry Friedman
2021-03-07 17:49:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Jerry Friedman
Hispanic men around here usually do "daps" or just fist-bumps with each
(Is that recent?)
It was well established when I moved here in 1994.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Jerry Friedman
other. Maybe in consequence, a lot of young men, including those I meet
at the gym who can bench-press a hundred pounds more than I ever could
and don't care who knows it, are nevertheless people who, in shaking
hands, shake hands with you like /that/.
Hark, an allusion! There ought to be something similar in *Patience*.
...

Should have been "persons", though.
--
Jerry Friedman
Sam Plusnet
2021-03-07 21:18:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Jerry Friedman
Hispanic men around here usually do "daps" or just fist-bumps with each
(Is that recent?)
Post by Jerry Friedman
other. Maybe in consequence, a lot of young men, including those I meet
at the gym who can bench-press a hundred pounds more than I ever could
and don't care who knows it, are nevertheless people who, in shaking
hands, shake hands with you like /that/.
Hark, an allusion! There ought to be something similar in *Patience*.
I should Ko-Ko[1][2]


[1] The Lord High Executioner of Titipu

and [2] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/I_should_cocoa
--
Sam Plusnet
Wales, UK
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2021-03-07 09:24:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Jerry Friedman
I meant to add that I also heard some bad things about assimilation
yesterday--for instance, a Navajo colleague objecting to his
children being taught that they should shake hands firmly and look
people in the eye. That view might be hard to reconcile with
"minoritized".
I don't think I ever learnt how to shake hands at school. That's the
sort of thing we learnt from parents, not from teachers.
Likewise.
--
Athel -- British, living in France for 34 years
Tony Cooper
2021-03-07 13:38:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 7 Mar 2021 10:24:53 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Jerry Friedman
I meant to add that I also heard some bad things about assimilation
yesterday--for instance, a Navajo colleague objecting to his
children being taught that they should shake hands firmly and look
people in the eye. That view might be hard to reconcile with
"minoritized".
I don't think I ever learnt how to shake hands at school. That's the
sort of thing we learnt from parents, not from teachers.
Likewise.
I am once again amazed at the memory of some of the posters here.

I cannot remember being instructed on how to shake hands. I know I
was doing it at a fairly early age because I was raised to be polite
when meeting or greeting some people. There were the people who
expected a hug, and people who expected a handshake. There were also
the female people who expected a kiss. The kiss-expecters were always
the ones I didn't want to meet or greet, with huggers not that much
more welcome.

But instructions on hand-shaking? As far as I can remember, only dogs
were taught to shake hands. It came naturally to humans.
--
Tony Cooper Orlando Florida
Peter Moylan
2021-03-08 02:06:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tony Cooper
On Sun, 7 Mar 2021 10:24:53 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Jerry Friedman
I meant to add that I also heard some bad things about assimilation
yesterday--for instance, a Navajo colleague objecting to his
children being taught that they should shake hands firmly and look
people in the eye. That view might be hard to reconcile with
"minoritized".
I don't think I ever learnt how to shake hands at school. That's the
sort of thing we learnt from parents, not from teachers.
Likewise.
I am once again amazed at the memory of some of the posters here.
I cannot remember being instructed on how to shake hands. I know I
was doing it at a fairly early age because I was raised to be polite
when meeting or greeting some people. There were the people who
expected a hug, and people who expected a handshake. There were also
the female people who expected a kiss. The kiss-expecters were always
the ones I didn't want to meet or greet, with huggers not that much
more welcome.
But instructions on hand-shaking? As far as I can remember, only dogs
were taught to shake hands. It came naturally to humans.
It still doesn't come very naturally to me. It was unusual where I grew up.
--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org
Quinn C
2021-03-10 18:38:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Tony Cooper
But instructions on hand-shaking? As far as I can remember, only dogs
were taught to shake hands. It came naturally to humans.
It still doesn't come very naturally to me. It was unusual where I grew up.
Oh - where was that?

Of course I don't believe for a moment that hand-shaking is innate any
more than nose-rubbing. It's socially learned, whether using words or
just in practice.
--
Ice hockey is a form of disorderly conduct
in which the score is kept.
-- Doug Larson
Jerry Friedman
2021-03-10 19:08:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quinn C
Post by Peter Moylan
But instructions on hand-shaking? As far as I can remember, only dogs
were taught to shake hands. It came naturally to humans.
It still doesn't come very naturally to me. It was unusual where I grew up.
Oh - where was that?
Of course I don't believe for a moment that hand-shaking is innate any
more than nose-rubbing. It's socially learned, whether using words or
just in practice.
That "socially learned... just in practice" is what I understood Tony's
"came naturally" to mean.
--
Jerry Friedman
Peter T. Daniels
2021-03-10 21:39:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Quinn C
Post by Peter Moylan
But instructions on hand-shaking? As far as I can remember, only dogs
were taught to shake hands. It came naturally to humans.
It still doesn't come very naturally to me. It was unusual where I grew up.
Oh - where was that?
Of course I don't believe for a moment that hand-shaking is innate any
more than nose-rubbing. It's socially learned, whether using words or
just in practice.
That "socially learned... just in practice" is what I understood Tony's
"came naturally" to mean.
Q, the social scientist, took it to mean "innately."

Does speaking "come naturally" because it is acquired without
instruction from interaction with the surrounding society?
Sam Plusnet
2021-03-10 19:17:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quinn C
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Tony Cooper
But instructions on hand-shaking? As far as I can remember, only dogs
were taught to shake hands. It came naturally to humans.
It still doesn't come very naturally to me. It was unusual where I grew up.
Oh - where was that?
Of course I don't believe for a moment that hand-shaking is innate any
more than nose-rubbing. It's socially learned, whether using words or
just in practice.
I am not Peter Moylan, but it was also "unusual where I grew up".
I don't think I had to deal with handshaking until I was in my twenties.
I didn't handle it very well then & haven't improved much since. I
find it awkward and would avoid it if that can be done without causing
even more awkwardness.
--
Sam Plusnet
Wales, UK
Tony Cooper
2021-03-10 19:38:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Quinn C
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Tony Cooper
But instructions on hand-shaking? As far as I can remember, only dogs
were taught to shake hands. It came naturally to humans.
It still doesn't come very naturally to me. It was unusual where I grew up.
Oh - where was that?
Of course I don't believe for a moment that hand-shaking is innate any
more than nose-rubbing. It's socially learned, whether using words or
just in practice.
I am not Peter Moylan, but it was also "unusual where I grew up".
I don't think I had to deal with handshaking until I was in my twenties.
I didn't handle it very well then & haven't improved much since. I
find it awkward and would avoid it if that can be done without causing
even more awkwardness.
The opposite is happening here. The friendly handshake has be pulled
back now that we are not supposed to be in physical contact with
others.

I ran into an old friend over the weekend that I had not seen in
several years. We both instinctively started to reach out and shake
hands, and - almost embarassedly - pulled back at the last moment. We
laughed about the awkwardnes of it.
--
Tony Cooper Orlando Florida
Quinn C
2021-03-10 19:49:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Quinn C
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Tony Cooper
But instructions on hand-shaking? As far as I can remember, only dogs
were taught to shake hands. It came naturally to humans.
It still doesn't come very naturally to me. It was unusual where I grew up.
Oh - where was that?
Of course I don't believe for a moment that hand-shaking is innate any
more than nose-rubbing. It's socially learned, whether using words or
just in practice.
I am not Peter Moylan, but it was also "unusual where I grew up".
I don't think I had to deal with handshaking until I was in my twenties.
I didn't handle it very well then & haven't improved much since. I
find it awkward and would avoid it if that can be done without causing
even more awkwardness.
Maybe that's just a difference in the way I'd phrase that, then.

I didn't have to do much hand-shaking in my teens, either, because it
was mostly done between adults in somewhat formal relationships, like
business partners, or parents to teachers - some (mostly men) would do
it with friends, but there was other options. But I wouldn't have said
it was "unusual where I grew up", because it was obvious that I was
going to be doing it once I was old enough. Different from, say, Japan.
--
Quinn C
My pronouns are they/them
(or other gender-neutral ones)
Sam Plusnet
2021-03-10 23:44:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quinn C
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Quinn C
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Tony Cooper
But instructions on hand-shaking? As far as I can remember, only dogs
were taught to shake hands. It came naturally to humans.
It still doesn't come very naturally to me. It was unusual where I grew up.
Oh - where was that?
Of course I don't believe for a moment that hand-shaking is innate any
more than nose-rubbing. It's socially learned, whether using words or
just in practice.
I am not Peter Moylan, but it was also "unusual where I grew up".
I don't think I had to deal with handshaking until I was in my twenties.
I didn't handle it very well then & haven't improved much since. I
find it awkward and would avoid it if that can be done without causing
even more awkwardness.
Maybe that's just a difference in the way I'd phrase that, then.
I didn't have to do much hand-shaking in my teens, either, because it
was mostly done between adults in somewhat formal relationships, like
business partners, or parents to teachers - some (mostly men) would do
it with friends, but there was other options. But I wouldn't have said
it was "unusual where I grew up", because it was obvious that I was
going to be doing it once I was old enough. Different from, say, Japan.
In my teens I didn't do any handshaking, nor did I see anyone around me
shaking hands (it didn't seem to be part of the local culture).
It was only in a business setting, probably in my late twenties, when I
first had to deal with this odd ritual[1].

[1] From my point of view.
--
Sam Plusnet
Wales, UK
Jerry Friedman
2021-03-10 23:56:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Quinn C
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Quinn C
Post by Peter Moylan
But instructions on hand-shaking?  As far as I can remember, only
dogs
were taught to shake hands.  It came naturally to humans.
It still doesn't come very naturally to me. It was unusual where I grew up.
Oh - where was that?
Of course I don't believe for a moment that hand-shaking is innate any
more than nose-rubbing. It's socially learned, whether using words or
just in practice.
I am not Peter Moylan, but it was also "unusual where I grew up".
I don't think I had to deal with handshaking until I was in my twenties.
   I didn't handle it very well then & haven't improved much since.  I
find it awkward and would avoid it if that can be done without causing
even more awkwardness.
Maybe that's just a difference in the way I'd phrase that, then.
I didn't have to do much hand-shaking in my teens, either, because it
was mostly done between adults in somewhat formal relationships, like
business partners, or parents to teachers - some (mostly men) would do
it with friends, but there was other options. But I wouldn't have said
it was "unusual where I grew up", because it was obvious that I was
going to be doing it once I was old enough. Different from, say, Japan.
In my teens I didn't do any handshaking, nor did I see anyone around me
shaking hands (it didn't seem to be part of the local culture).
It was only in a business setting, probably in my late twenties, when I
first had to deal with this odd ritual[1].
[1] From my point of view.
I'm curious about where that was.

In my teens, I shook hands when I was introduced to people, when I was
congratulating people or being congratulated (so there was a lot at my
bar mitzvah), and occasionally to make an agreement, such as a bet.

In the first week at college, still in my teens, and met a lot of new
people, I thought we were setting some kind of record for handshaking.
Little did I know that I'd move to a place where that amount or more was
part of an ordinary day for many men and boys, if you extend handshaking
to mean different kinds of hand-to-hand greetings.
--
Jerry Friedman
CDB
2021-03-11 14:01:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Quinn C
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Quinn C
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Tony Cooper
But instructions on hand-shaking? As far as I can
remember, only dogs were taught to shake hands. It came
naturally to humans.
It still doesn't come very naturally to me. It was unusual where I grew up.
Oh - where was that?
Of course I don't believe for a moment that hand-shaking is
innate any more than nose-rubbing. It's socially learned,
whether using words or just in practice.
I am not Peter Moylan, but it was also "unusual where I grew
up". I don't think I had to deal with handshaking until I was
in my twenties. I didn't handle it very well then & haven't
improved much since. I find it awkward and would avoid it if
that can be done without causing even more awkwardness.
Maybe that's just a difference in the way I'd phrase that, then.
I didn't have to do much hand-shaking in my teens, either,
because it was mostly done between adults in somewhat formal
relationships, like business partners, or parents to teachers -
some (mostly men) would do it with friends, but there was other
options. But I wouldn't have said it was "unusual where I grew
up", because it was obvious that I was going to be doing it once
I was old enough. Different from, say, Japan.
In my teens I didn't do any handshaking, nor did I see anyone
around me shaking hands (it didn't seem to be part of the local
culture). It was only in a business setting, probably in my late
twenties, when I first had to deal with this odd ritual[1].
[1] From my point of view.
I'm curious about where that was.
In my teens, I shook hands when I was introduced to people, when I
was congratulating people or being congratulated (so there was a lot
at my bar mitzvah), and occasionally to make an agreement, such as a
bet.
In the first week at college, still in my teens, and met a lot of new
people, I thought we were setting some kind of record for
handshaking. Little did I know that I'd move to a place where that
amount or more was part of an ordinary day for many men and boys, if
you extend handshaking to mean different kinds of hand-to-hand
greetings.
I got used to handshaking early on -- my impression was that the French
did a lot of it -- but, as a teenager, I found the Latin-American abrazo
awkward at first.
Peter T. Daniels
2021-03-11 17:19:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by CDB
I got used to handshaking early on -- my impression was that the French
did a lot of it -- but, as a teenager, I found the Latin-American abrazo
awkward at first.
How does Haiti fit in this cultural rainbow? Seems like neither fish nor fowl.
CDB
2021-03-12 11:11:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by CDB
I got used to handshaking early on -- my impression was that the
French did a lot of it -- but, as a teenager, I found the
Latin-American abrazo awkward at first.
How does Haiti fit in this cultural rainbow? Seems like neither fish nor fowl.
Lots of Latin Americans and their families in the Port-au-Prince dip
corps. I was a teenager in Mexico and Argentina too, but an old one,
hardened to the practice.
Janet
2021-03-11 01:11:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Quinn C
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Quinn C
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Tony Cooper
But instructions on hand-shaking? As far as I can remember, only dogs
were taught to shake hands. It came naturally to humans.
It still doesn't come very naturally to me. It was unusual where I grew up.
Oh - where was that?
Of course I don't believe for a moment that hand-shaking is innate any
more than nose-rubbing. It's socially learned, whether using words or
just in practice.
I am not Peter Moylan, but it was also "unusual where I grew up".
I don't think I had to deal with handshaking until I was in my twenties.
I didn't handle it very well then & haven't improved much since. I
find it awkward and would avoid it if that can be done without causing
even more awkwardness.
Maybe that's just a difference in the way I'd phrase that, then.
I didn't have to do much hand-shaking in my teens, either, because it
was mostly done between adults in somewhat formal relationships, like
business partners, or parents to teachers - some (mostly men) would do
it with friends, but there was other options. But I wouldn't have said
it was "unusual where I grew up", because it was obvious that I was
going to be doing it once I was old enough. Different from, say, Japan.
In my teens I didn't do any handshaking, nor did I see anyone around me
shaking hands (it didn't seem to be part of the local culture).
It was only in a business setting, probably in my late twenties, when I
first had to deal with this odd ritual[1].
[1] From my point of view.
At school prizegivings, there was an invited guest to hand them
out, and an audience of the school. Prize winners were called up on
stage , name announced, and you shook the hand of the guest before they
handed over the book or cup. Ahead of prize giving, we were shown and
reminded what to do.
That was my first introduction to handshaking.

Janet.
Sam Plusnet
2021-03-11 18:19:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Janet
Post by Sam Plusnet
In my teens I didn't do any handshaking, nor did I see anyone around me
shaking hands (it didn't seem to be part of the local culture).
It was only in a business setting, probably in my late twenties, when I
first had to deal with this odd ritual[1].
[1] From my point of view.
At school prizegivings, there was an invited guest to hand them
out, and an audience of the school. Prize winners were called up on
stage , name announced, and you shook the hand of the guest before they
handed over the book or cup. Ahead of prize giving, we were shown and
reminded what to do.
That was my first introduction to handshaking.
Hmm.
I remember school prize givings but can't remember if handshaking was
involved. Perhaps it was, and I deleted the memory for some reason.
--
Sam Plusnet
Wales, UK
Tony Cooper
2021-03-10 19:23:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 10 Mar 2021 13:38:05 -0500, Quinn C
Post by Quinn C
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Tony Cooper
But instructions on hand-shaking? As far as I can remember, only dogs
were taught to shake hands. It came naturally to humans.
It still doesn't come very naturally to me. It was unusual where I grew up.
Oh - where was that?
Of course I don't believe for a moment that hand-shaking is innate any
more than nose-rubbing. It's socially learned, whether using words or
just in practice.
That we do shake hands is socially acquired, but *how* to shake hands
can be acquired naturally. I don't remember ever been taught to grasp
the other hand firmly and look into the other person's eyes as has
been suggested.

Also, there's a natural tendency to reject a style that is not
pleasant when other people do it. I didn't need to be taught not to
grip the other person's hand with excessive force, hold it too long,
or present that dead fish soft grip that some have.
--
Tony Cooper Orlando Florida
Peter Moylan
2021-03-11 03:36:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quinn C
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Tony Cooper
But instructions on hand-shaking? As far as I can remember, only
dogs were taught to shake hands. It came naturally to humans.
It still doesn't come very naturally to me. It was unusual where I grew up.
Oh - where was that?
Rural Victoria. I think businessmen and politicians shook hands then,
but ordinary people didn't.
Post by Quinn C
Of course I don't believe for a moment that hand-shaking is innate
any more than nose-rubbing. It's socially learned, whether using
words or just in practice.
--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org
Lewis
2021-03-08 07:47:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tony Cooper
On Sun, 7 Mar 2021 10:24:53 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Jerry Friedman
I meant to add that I also heard some bad things about assimilation
yesterday--for instance, a Navajo colleague objecting to his
children being taught that they should shake hands firmly and look
people in the eye. That view might be hard to reconcile with
"minoritized".
I don't think I ever learnt how to shake hands at school. That's the
sort of thing we learnt from parents, not from teachers.
Likewise.
I am once again amazed at the memory of some of the posters here.
I cannot remember being instructed on how to shake hands. I know I
was doing it at a fairly early age because I was raised to be polite
when meeting or greeting some people. There were the people who
expected a hug, and people who expected a handshake. There were also
the female people who expected a kiss. The kiss-expecters were always
the ones I didn't want to meet or greet, with huggers not that much
more welcome.
But instructions on hand-shaking? As far as I can remember, only dogs
were taught to shake hands. It came naturally to humans.
I also recall being taught how to shake hands, or at least to shake
hands "properly". It was not that common in Mexico, at least not in the
same way that it is here where it is almost a ritualized greeting akin
to the Japanese bow whereas in Mexico it was more of a sign of affection
(genuine or not). There's also none (or was none) of that "handshake
deal" sort pf sense, so when I was still in signal digits there were a
couple of cursory lessons in how to shake hands, from various people.

One of the upsides from the COVID pandemic is that I am unlikely ever to
shake hands with strangers again, and will be able to revert to using
that only with good friends.
--
Oh look, good intentions!
Snidely
2021-03-08 21:03:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Lewis
Post by Tony Cooper
On Sun, 7 Mar 2021 10:24:53 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Jerry Friedman
I meant to add that I also heard some bad things about assimilation
yesterday--for instance, a Navajo colleague objecting to his
children being taught that they should shake hands firmly and look
people in the eye. That view might be hard to reconcile with
"minoritized".
I don't think I ever learnt how to shake hands at school. That's the
sort of thing we learnt from parents, not from teachers.
Likewise.
I am once again amazed at the memory of some of the posters here.
I cannot remember being instructed on how to shake hands. I know I
was doing it at a fairly early age because I was raised to be polite
when meeting or greeting some people. There were the people who
expected a hug, and people who expected a handshake. There were also
the female people who expected a kiss. The kiss-expecters were always
the ones I didn't want to meet or greet, with huggers not that much
more welcome.
But instructions on hand-shaking? As far as I can remember, only dogs
were taught to shake hands. It came naturally to humans.
I also recall being taught how to shake hands, or at least to shake
hands "properly".
I had exposure to it not just through my parents but through movies and
TV.

I just happened to watch the Google animation for International Women's
Day, and there is at least one hand-shake there, and also two
hand-holdings (one low, as in companionship or unity, and one high, as
in shared celebration). Your logo may vary according to which google
center serves you.
Post by Lewis
It was not that common in Mexico, at least not in the
same way that it is here where it is almost a ritualized greeting akin
to the Japanese bow whereas in Mexico it was more of a sign of affection
(genuine or not). There's also none (or was none) of that "handshake
deal" sort pf sense, so when I was still in signal digits there were a
couple of cursory lessons in how to shake hands, from various people.
One of the upsides from the COVID pandemic is that I am unlikely ever to
shake hands with strangers again, and will be able to revert to using
that only with good friends.
I wouldn't be surprised if the "business" handshake comes back, marking
agreement and trust in the deal just worked out. Time will tell.

/dps
--
"I am not given to exaggeration, and when I say a thing I mean it"
_Roughing It_, Mark Twain
Quinn C
2021-03-07 19:15:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Jerry Friedman
I didn't see much of that, though I wouldn't have been surprised.
It was more about that "minoritized" (new to me) groups have extra
barriers to face and trying to remove them. I had to miss some
parts (I'll watch the recordings), but in what I was present for,
there weren't a lot of concrete suggestions.
Minoritized groups: those that used not to be a minority, but have
somehow been turned into a minority?
I just learned that word last month (contrary to the impression I probably
gave you) and haven't seen an explanation. I suspect the idea is that
these are groups that are seen by the dominant culture as separate and
worth discriminating against. One example might be African Americans.
The first black workers who were brought here were legally indentured
servants with the same status as white indentured servants, but half a
century later, the colonies started passing laws defining black people
and restricting their rights, soon reaching the point of establishing
slavery.
I hadn't seen "minoritized", but see it as an obvious extension of
recently common "racialized", which IMU indicates that it's the
"otherizing", the perception as "other" by the dominant group and
following exclusion that creates the racial, ethnic ... distinctions.

Speaking of "racialized", Germany is just discussing removing the word
"race" from the constitution. Currently, it says that nobody ought to be
discriminated against because of their race, among other things. In the
future, it's probably going to say "for racist reasons", with the
purpose of indicating that "race" is not a thing that just is, but is in
the mind of the racist.

I haven't seen a whole lot of the discussion, but I wouldn't be
surprised if the main target of this proposal are those racists who
claim that "if race doesn't exist, as you lefties say, I can't be
racist."
--
9/11 was pretty much the 9/11 of the falafel business.
-- Abed Nadir on Community
Kerr-Mudd,John
2021-03-06 10:59:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Jerry Friedman
We had Professional Development Day today, all about equity in higher
education.
equity? Does any other word share the same ambiguity?
Or is it now a stock phrase?
Post by Sam Plusnet
Strange. Inequality is at the very core of "Higher" Education.
--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug.
Peter T. Daniels
2021-03-06 17:24:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
We had Professional Development Day today, all about equity in higher
education. Lots of different speakers. I heard the following
pronunciations.
"dayta" from everyone who used the word, except that one person said
"datta" and immediately corrected it to "dayta"
"recoup" and "recouping" like "recoo(ing)"
You mean without /p/? (What could the vowel be other than "coo"?)
Post by Jerry Friedman
"AAVE" like "Ave [Maria]". Hm, maybe that's not the same everywhere.
Sorry, still an initialism in linguistics. Four syllables!
Post by Jerry Friedman
"AHvay". /'ɑveɪ/. (Make that last vowel a superscript if you want.)
Jerry Friedman
2021-03-06 20:47:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Jerry Friedman
We had Professional Development Day today, all about equity in higher
education. Lots of different speakers. I heard the following
pronunciations.
"dayta" from everyone who used the word, except that one person said
"datta" and immediately corrected it to "dayta"
"recoup" and "recouping" like "recoo(ing)"
You mean without /p/? (What could the vowel be other than "coo"?)
Yes.

Etymonline says is related to "coup", but through "couper". It's not
related to "recuperate", which I thought it might be.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Jerry Friedman
"AAVE" like "Ave [Maria]". Hm, maybe that's not the same everywhere.
...
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Sorry, still an initialism in linguistics. Four syllables!
I forgot one, but Snidely reminded me: "milieu" with the accent on
the first syllable, "MILyoo".

The OED says Brit. /ˈmiːljəː/, /mɪlˈjəː/, U.S. /mɪlˈju/, /mɪlˈjə/

So apparently in RP it can have the accent on the first syllable, but
the final vowel is always the NURSE vowel. The American schwa in
an accented syllable is supposed to be the STRUT vowel, but I find
that hard to imagine.
--
Jerry Friedman
Peter T. Daniels
2021-03-06 23:04:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Jerry Friedman
We had Professional Development Day today, all about equity in higher
education. Lots of different speakers. I heard the following
pronunciations.
"dayta" from everyone who used the word, except that one person said
"datta" and immediately corrected it to "dayta"
"recoup" and "recouping" like "recoo(ing)"
You mean without /p/? (What could the vowel be other than "coo"?)
Yes.
How odd. But you'll hear "coo de gra" a lot, as if it had something to
do with fat livers.
Etymonline says is related to "coup", but through "couper". It's not
related to "recuperate", which I thought it might be.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Jerry Friedman
"AAVE" like "Ave [Maria]". Hm, maybe that's not the same everywhere.
...
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Sorry, still an initialism in linguistics. Four syllables!
I forgot one, but Snidely reminded me: "milieu" with the accent on
the first syllable, "MILyoo".
The OED says Brit. /ˈmiːljəː/, /mɪlˈjəː/, U.S. /mɪlˈju/, /mɪlˈjə/
So apparently in RP it can have the accent on the first syllable, but
the final vowel is always the NURSE vowel. The American schwa in
an accented syllable is supposed to be the STRUT vowel, but I find
that hard to imagine.
I'd guess a rounded vowel in imitation of French, even though that
vowel isn't supposed to exist in English.
Stefan Ram
2021-03-07 14:24:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
So apparently in RP it can have the accent on the first syllable, but
the final vowel is always the NURSE vowel. The American schwa in
an accented syllable is supposed to be the STRUT vowel, but I find
that hard to imagine.
I think that is a question of the transcription system used,
as well as of phonetic reality.

Some pronunciation dictionaries will not have a single instance
where a syllable with a schwa at its core is stressed.

In theory, a trained speaker, of course, could pronounce a word
(which might not exist in English) with a stressed schwa, which
is not a STRUT vowel, but a proper schwa.

In the transcriptions of "milieu" in my dictionaries, I do not
find a stressed schwa, so for me the problem does not arise in
this case.

For the French pronunciation of milieu, some sources give

miˈljøː

. A certain text-to-speech system, however, renders this as what
sounds to me like

ˈmi̞lˌjøː

. The final stress of French is often misunderstand anyway.
What gets that final stress are the endings of /rhythm groups/,
not of words!
Stefan Ram
2021-03-14 02:37:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Stefan Ram
Some pronunciation dictionaries will not have a single instance
where a syllable with a schwa at its core is stressed.
Just ran into the pronunciation of "gluttonous" given as

ˈɡlətn̩əs

. Another source gives

ˈglʌtənəs

. This would coincide with the view, probably once expressed
here, according to which a stressed [ə] is an [ʌ]. I believe
that I have no problem with stressing a [ə] (keeping the
vowel quality), but I do not know which pronunciation actually
is "correct".

Wait, I can listen to a recording of the word ... Yes, in a
TV serious, the character says [ˈglʌtənəs], not [ˈɡlətn̩əs],
if my hearing serves me well.

(There is another situation when a Schwa is lowered; at the
end of words before a pause (/if/ there is a pause), it is
pronounced [a], for example when the word sofa [ˈsoʊfə] is
spoken in isolation.)
Stefan Ram
2021-03-17 17:18:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Stefan Ram
Just ran into the pronunciation of "gluttonous" given as
ˈɡlətn̩əs
. Another source gives
ˈglʌtənəs
Or, one source gave ˈkəl ɚ for "color", which clearly should
be [ˈkʌlɚ]. This shows that, usually, ˈə is not meant to be
a real [ˈə], but an [ˈʌ]. Of course, one should, by all means,
use [ˈʌ] for [ˈʌ]! Maybe the users of ˈə use this as a
/phoneme/ that is to be realized by the sound [ˈʌ].
Kerr-Mudd,John
2021-03-17 17:31:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Stefan Ram
Just ran into the pronunciation of "gluttonous" given as
ˈɡlətn̩əs
. Another source gives
ˈglʌtənəs
Or, one source gave ˈkəl ɚ for "color", which clearly should
be [ˈkʌlɚ]. This shows that, usually, ˈə is not meant to be
a real [ˈə], but an [ˈʌ]. Of course, one should, by all means,
use [ˈʌ] for [ˈʌ]! Maybe the users of ˈə use this as a
/phoneme/ that is to be realized by the sound [ˈʌ].
I think I'll give up.
--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug.
Mack A. Damia
2021-03-17 18:00:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 17 Mar 2021 17:31:56 -0000 (UTC), "Kerr-Mudd,John"
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
Post by Stefan Ram
Just ran into the pronunciation of "gluttonous" given as
ˈɡlətn̩əs
. Another source gives
ˈglʌtənəs
Or, one source gave ˈkəl ɚ for "color", which clearly should
be [ˈkʌlɚ]. This shows that, usually, ˈə is not meant to be
a real [ˈə], but an [ˈʌ]. Of course, one should, by all means,
use [ˈʌ] for [ˈʌ]! Maybe the users of ˈə use this as a
/phoneme/ that is to be realized by the sound [ˈʌ].
I think I'll give up.
Can I have your spider collection?
Peter T. Daniels
2021-03-17 18:18:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Stefan Ram
Post by Stefan Ram
Just ran into the pronunciation of "gluttonous" given as
ˈɡlətn̩əs
I suppose that might be British.
Post by Stefan Ram
Post by Stefan Ram
. Another source gives
ˈglʌtənəs
That's American.
Post by Stefan Ram
Or, one source gave ˈkəl ɚ for "color", which clearly should
be [ˈkʌlɚ]. This shows that, usually, ˈə is not meant to be
Where did you get "should"?

According to the IPA chart, the first syllable of "color" does
not have the vowel officially symbolized by ʌ.

There is, though, a convention that the vowel sound resulting
from a stressed shwa is written with ʌ, since the IPA does not
recognize it as a different phone but it's useful in describing
English to have two different symbols.
Post by Stefan Ram
a real [ˈə], but an [ˈʌ]. Of course, one should, by all means,
use [ˈʌ] for [ˈʌ]! Maybe the users of ˈə use this as a
/phoneme/ that is to be realized by the sound [ˈʌ].
If it's in slant brackets, they're using it as a phoneme. It is
not realized as IPA [ʌ].
CDB
2021-03-17 18:30:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Stefan Ram
Just ran into the pronunciation of "gluttonous" given as
ˈɡlətn̩əs
I suppose that might be British.
Perhaps the n-with-a-dot is our old friend vocalic "n", realised by
releasing the t-stop through the nose without changing the point of
articulation. I'm pretty sure I've heard that from Americans. Most
people IME say "Netanyahu" like [,nEtn̩'j&hu].
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Stefan Ram
. Another source gives ˈglʌtənəs
That's American.
[did you know that Hebrew has three different colours of shwa?]
--
I thought you would!
Peter T. Daniels
2021-03-17 20:30:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by CDB
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Stefan Ram
Just ran into the pronunciation of "gluttonous" given as
ˈɡlətn̩əs
I suppose that might be British.
Perhaps the n-with-a-dot is our old friend vocalic "n", realised by
releasing the t-stop through the nose without changing the point of
articulation. I'm pretty sure I've heard that from Americans. Most
people IME say "Netanyahu" like [,nEtn̩'j&hu].
Oh. I missed the teeny-weeny dot. Phonemically there's no
difference between the two notations -- with the syllabic mark
or with the preceding shwa. It just depends on how you analyze
syllabic consonants. I thought he indicated a two-syllable version.
Post by CDB
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Stefan Ram
. Another source gives ˈglʌtənəs
That's American.
[did you know that Hebrew has three different colours of shwa?]
--
I thought you would!
"Color" of shwa is a ... pretheoretic designation. The pointing
labeled "shwa" (looks like a colon under a letter) has three
functions. It marks its consonant as vowelless; it marks the
following vowel as the "indistinct" vowel; or it's a diacritic in
combination with each of three of the full-vowel points (a, o,
and e, roughly) to mark the "coloring" of an indistinct vowel
after a "guttural" consonant. They're known as the "half" versions
of the vowels indicated by the points without the shwa alongside.
CDB
2021-03-18 13:22:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by CDB
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Stefan Ram
Just ran into the pronunciation of "gluttonous" given as
ˈɡlətn̩əs
I suppose that might be British.
Perhaps the n-with-a-dot is our old friend vocalic "n", realised
by releasing the t-stop through the nose without changing the point
of articulation. I'm pretty sure I've heard that from Americans.
Most people IME say "Netanyahu" like [,nEtn̩'j&hu].
Oh. I missed the teeny-weeny dot. Phonemically there's no difference
between the two notations -- with the syllabic mark or with the
preceding shwa. It just depends on how you analyze syllabic
consonants. I thought he indicated a two-syllable version.
Post by CDB
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Stefan Ram
. Another source gives ˈglʌtənəs
That's American.
[did you know that Hebrew has three different colours of shwa?] --
I thought you would!
"Color" of shwa is a ... pretheoretic designation. The pointing
labeled "shwa" (looks like a colon under a letter) has three
functions. It marks its consonant as vowelless; it marks the
following vowel as the "indistinct" vowel; or it's a diacritic in
combination with each of three of the full-vowel points (a, o, and e,
roughly) to mark the "coloring" of an indistinct vowel after a
"guttural" consonant. They're known as the "half" versions of the
vowels indicated by the points without the shwa alongside.
Indeed. To me, they were known as "chateph-pathach", "chateph-seghol",
and "chateph-qametz-chatuph". Not quite respectively, in this case.
Quinn C
2021-03-17 22:06:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Stefan Ram
Just ran into the pronunciation of "gluttonous" given as
ˈɡlətn̩əs
I suppose that might be British.
Post by Stefan Ram
. Another source gives
ˈglʌtənəs
That's American.
You got that backwards. It's American dictionary convention to write
this sound as stressed schwa, whereas British dictionaries write it as
ʌ. That's even true when comparing the Oxford dictionaries for US and UK
English.
--
I try not to dwell on what's right and what's wrong.
It slows my processors.
-- Rommie (Andromeda ship AI)
Peter Moylan
2021-03-17 23:41:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quinn C
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Stefan Ram
Just ran into the pronunciation of "gluttonous" given as
ˈɡlətn̩əs
I suppose that might be British.
Post by Stefan Ram
. Another source gives ˈglʌtənəs
That's American.
You got that backwards. It's American dictionary convention to write
this sound as stressed schwa, whereas British dictionaries write it
as ʌ. That's even true when comparing the Oxford dictionaries for US
and UK English.
On top of that, an American schwa and a British schwa sound different.
(As a first approximation. Of course there are variations across both
countries.) To me, a typical American schwa sounds a lot like what
non-rhotic speakers call the "er" vowel (Which many Americans write as
"uh". But I wouldn't, because "uh" looks like it should mean my "cup"
vowel.)
--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org
Peter T. Daniels
2021-03-18 11:49:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Quinn C
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Stefan Ram
Just ran into the pronunciation of "gluttonous" given as
ˈɡlətn̩əs
I suppose that might be British.
Post by Stefan Ram
. Another source gives ˈglʌtənəs
That's American.
You got that backwards. It's American dictionary convention to write
this sound as stressed schwa, whereas British dictionaries write it
as ʌ. That's even true when comparing the Oxford dictionaries for US
and UK English.
On top of that, an American schwa and a British schwa sound different.
(As a first approximation. Of course there are variations across both
countries.) To me, a typical American schwa sounds a lot like what
non-rhotic speakers call the "er" vowel (Which many Americans write as
"uh". But I wouldn't, because "uh" looks like it should mean my "cup"
vowel.)
Your er is the reversed epsilon mentioned a few days ago, your uh is the
stressed shwa usually written with turned-v (in defiance of IPA).
Peter Moylan
2021-03-19 06:27:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Quinn C
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Stefan Ram
Just ran into the pronunciation of "gluttonous" given as
ˈɡlətn̩əs
I suppose that might be British.
Post by Stefan Ram
. Another source gives ˈglʌtənəs
That's American.
You got that backwards. It's American dictionary convention to write
this sound as stressed schwa, whereas British dictionaries write it
as ʌ. That's even true when comparing the Oxford dictionaries for US
and UK English.
On top of that, an American schwa and a British schwa sound different.
(As a first approximation. Of course there are variations across both
countries.) To me, a typical American schwa sounds a lot like what
non-rhotic speakers call the "er" vowel (Which many Americans write as
"uh". But I wouldn't, because "uh" looks like it should mean my "cup"
vowel.)
Your er is the reversed epsilon mentioned a few days ago, your uh is the
stressed shwa usually written with turned-v (in defiance of IPA).
Yes, but if I stress a schwa it doesn't sound anything like the "cup" vowel.
--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org
Quinn C
2021-03-19 13:23:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter Moylan
On top of that, an American schwa and a British schwa sound different.
(As a first approximation. Of course there are variations across both
countries.) To me, a typical American schwa sounds a lot like what
non-rhotic speakers call the "er" vowel (Which many Americans write as
"uh". But I wouldn't, because "uh" looks like it should mean my "cup"
vowel.)
Your er is the reversed epsilon mentioned a few days ago, your uh is the
stressed shwa usually written with turned-v (in defiance of IPA).
Yes, but if I stress a schwa it doesn't sound anything like the "cup" vowel.
I also still have this issue. I see that it works, formally, to treat
them both as one phoneme, but, like with the two readings of German
"ch", it doesn't seem compelling.
--
Quinn C
My pronouns are they/them
(or other gender-neutral ones)
Peter T. Daniels
2021-03-19 14:51:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Quinn C
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Stefan Ram
Just ran into the pronunciation of "gluttonous" given as
ˈɡlətn̩əs
I suppose that might be British.
Post by Stefan Ram
. Another source gives ˈglʌtənəs
That's American.
You got that backwards. It's American dictionary convention to write
this sound as stressed schwa, whereas British dictionaries write it
as ʌ. That's even true when comparing the Oxford dictionaries for US
and UK English.
On top of that, an American schwa and a British schwa sound different.
(As a first approximation. Of course there are variations across both
countries.) To me, a typical American schwa sounds a lot like what
non-rhotic speakers call the "er" vowel (Which many Americans write as
"uh". But I wouldn't, because "uh" looks like it should mean my "cup"
vowel.)
Your er is the reversed epsilon mentioned a few days ago, your uh is the
stressed shwa usually written with turned-v (in defiance of IPA).
Yes, but if I stress a schwa it doesn't sound anything like the "cup" vowel.
We're talking phonemes. The "up" vowel is in complementary distribution
with the shwa.

And aren't you one of the ones who don't have "barred-i," i.e. a distinction
between "Russias" (shwa) and "rushes" (barred-i, i.e. high central)?
Peter Moylan
2021-03-20 02:07:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Quinn C
Post by Peter T. Daniels
On Wed, 17 Mar 2021 17:18:57 GMT,
Post by Stefan Ram
Just ran into the pronunciation of "gluttonous"
given as ˈɡlətn̩əs
I suppose that might be British.
Post by Stefan Ram
. Another source gives ˈglʌtənəs
That's American.
You got that backwards. It's American dictionary convention
to write this sound as stressed schwa, whereas British
dictionaries write it as ʌ. That's even true when comparing
the Oxford dictionaries for US and UK English.
On top of that, an American schwa and a British schwa sound
different. (As a first approximation. Of course there are
variations across both countries.) To me, a typical American
schwa sounds a lot like what non-rhotic speakers call the "er"
vowel (Which many Americans write as "uh". But I wouldn't,
because "uh" looks like it should mean my "cup" vowel.)
Your er is the reversed epsilon mentioned a few days ago, your
uh is the stressed shwa usually written with turned-v (in
defiance of IPA).
Yes, but if I stress a schwa it doesn't sound anything like the "cup" vowel.
We're talking phonemes. The "up" vowel is in complementary
distribution with the shwa.
Perhaps so, but lumping them together produces a strong feeling of
not-rightness in my mind.

Ask a New Zealander to say "bitter" (***@t@) and "butter" (bVt@). Everyone
will agree that they sound different, and that the difference is under
the speaker's control. I just don't like the idea of calling them
phonemically identical when they're distinct in every other way.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
And aren't you one of the ones who don't have "barred-i," i.e. a
distinction between "Russias" (shwa) and "rushes" (barred-i, i.e.
high central)?
That's the opposite phenomemon. It's true that those two words are
phonetically identical in my speech, but in my mind they're made of
distinct phonemes.
--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org
Peter T. Daniels
2021-03-20 13:51:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Quinn C
Post by Peter T. Daniels
On Wed, 17 Mar 2021 17:18:57 GMT,
Post by Stefan Ram
Just ran into the pronunciation of "gluttonous"
given as ˈɡlətn̩əs
I suppose that might be British.
Post by Stefan Ram
. Another source gives ˈglʌtənəs
That's American.
You got that backwards. It's American dictionary convention
to write this sound as stressed schwa, whereas British
dictionaries write it as ʌ. That's even true when comparing
the Oxford dictionaries for US and UK English.
On top of that, an American schwa and a British schwa sound
different. (As a first approximation. Of course there are
variations across both countries.) To me, a typical American
schwa sounds a lot like what non-rhotic speakers call the "er"
vowel (Which many Americans write as "uh". But I wouldn't,
because "uh" looks like it should mean my "cup" vowel.)
Your er is the reversed epsilon mentioned a few days ago, your
uh is the stressed shwa usually written with turned-v (in
defiance of IPA).
Yes, but if I stress a schwa it doesn't sound anything like the "cup" vowel.
We're talking phonemes. The "up" vowel is in complementary
distribution with the shwa.
Perhaps so, but lumping them together produces a strong feeling of
not-rightness in my mind.
will agree that they sound different, and that the difference is under
the speaker's control. I just don't like the idea of calling them
phonemically identical when they're distinct in every other way.
That's _their_ dialect, not ours, so having different phonemic systems
isn't unexpected. What can you say about yours? I don't know whether
the Ozzie trip around the vowel triangle is the same one or a different
one from the Kiwi trip that have stopped at different points. I need a
diagram of the GAusVS and the GNZVS to compare with the GEVS.
(Apparently we don't call it the Great English Vowel Shift any more,
just the Great Vowel Shift.)

The six/sex/sucks jokes only work because AusE and NZE
have different GVSs and the jokes can't be understood in AmE.
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Peter T. Daniels
And aren't you one of the ones who don't have "barred-i," i.e. a
distinction between "Russias" (shwa) and "rushes" (barred-i, i.e.
high central)?
That's the opposite phenomemon. It's true that those two words are
phonetically identical in my speech, but in my mind they're made of
distinct phonemes.
Now that's interesting and not supposed to happen, except when
distinctions are neutralized in specific environments (such as
word-final devoicing). Is it just you because you know about phonemes,
or is there a way to discover whether the Bruces and Sheilas on the
street have the same feeling?
Peter Moylan
2021-03-21 00:04:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Peter T. Daniels
And aren't you one of the ones who don't have "barred-i," i.e. a
distinction between "Russias" (shwa) and "rushes" (barred-i,
i.e. high central)?
That's the opposite phenomemon. It's true that those two words are
phonetically identical in my speech, but in my mind they're made
of distinct phonemes.
Now that's interesting and not supposed to happen, except when
distinctions are neutralized in specific environments (such as
word-final devoicing). Is it just you because you know about
phonemes, or is there a way to discover whether the Bruces and
Sheilas on the street have the same feeling?
I don't know how to discover that. I suspect that the average Australia
isn't even aware that we have the same pronunciation for the two words.
After all, they sound completely different without the final inflection.
--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org
Peter T. Daniels
2021-03-21 14:01:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Peter T. Daniels
And aren't you one of the ones who don't have "barred-i," i.e. a
distinction between "Russias" (shwa) and "rushes" (barred-i,
i.e. high central)?
That's the opposite phenomemon. It's true that those two words are
phonetically identical in my speech, but in my mind they're made
of distinct phonemes.
Now that's interesting and not supposed to happen, except when
distinctions are neutralized in specific environments (such as
word-final devoicing). Is it just you because you know about
phonemes, or is there a way to discover whether the Bruces and
Sheilas on the street have the same feeling?
I don't know how to discover that. I suspect that the average Australia
isn't even aware that we have the same pronunciation for the two words.
After all, they sound completely different without the final inflection.
By considering all the other minimal pairs of shwa and barred-i, of course!

(No, I don't have the list we spent an entire Phonology class compiling
in fall semester 1970.) (That means a one-hour session of the one-
semester course in Phonology.)
Peter T. Daniels
2021-03-18 11:46:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quinn C
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Stefan Ram
Just ran into the pronunciation of "gluttonous" given as
ˈɡlətn̩əs
I suppose that might be British.
Post by Stefan Ram
. Another source gives
ˈglʌtənəs
That's American.
You got that backwards. It's American dictionary convention to write
this sound as stressed schwa, whereas British dictionaries write it as
ʌ. That's even true when comparing the Oxford dictionaries for US and UK
English.
I was referring to the syllable count (not having seen the syllabic
mark), not Stefan's misconception about turned-v.
Quinn C
2021-03-18 23:26:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Quinn C
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Stefan Ram
Just ran into the pronunciation of "gluttonous" given as
ˈɡlətn̩əs
I suppose that might be British.
Post by Stefan Ram
. Another source gives
ˈglʌtənəs
That's American.
You got that backwards. It's American dictionary convention to write
this sound as stressed schwa, whereas British dictionaries write it as
ʌ. That's even true when comparing the Oxford dictionaries for US and UK
English.
I was referring to the syllable count (not having seen the syllabic
mark), not Stefan's misconception about turned-v.
Ok. I was sure you knew what I wrote.

But then, still, because the convention is so strong across many
dictionaries I use regularly, I assume every pronunciation that contains
stressed schwa is supposed to represent AmE.
--
Quinn C
My pronouns are they/them
(or other gender-neutral ones)
Quinn C
2021-03-17 22:06:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
Post by Stefan Ram
Just ran into the pronunciation of "gluttonous" given as
ˈɡlətn̩əs
. Another source gives
ˈglʌtənəs
Or, one source gave ˈkəl ɚ for "color", which clearly should
be [ˈkʌlɚ]. This shows that, usually, ˈə is not meant to be
a real [ˈə], but an [ˈʌ]. Of course, one should, by all means,
use [ˈʌ] for [ˈʌ]! Maybe the users of ˈə use this as a
/phoneme/ that is to be realized by the sound [ˈʌ].
I think I'll give up.
Or you could use 21st century software.
--
The country has its quota of fools and windbags; such people are
most prominent in politics, where their inherent weaknesses seem
less glaring and attract less ridicule than they would in other
walks of life. -- Robert Bothwell et.al.: Canada since 1945
Kerr-Mudd,John
2021-03-18 09:18:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 17 Mar 2021 22:06:20 GMT, Quinn C
Post by Quinn C
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
Post by Stefan Ram
Just ran into the pronunciation of "gluttonous" given as
ˈɡlətn̩əs
. Another source gives
ˈglʌtənəs
Or, one source gave ˈkəl ɚ for "color", which clearly should
be [ˈkʌlɚ]. This shows that, usually, ˈə is not meant to be
a real [ˈə], but an [ˈʌ]. Of course, one should, by all means,
use [ˈʌ] for [ˈʌ]! Maybe the users of ˈə use this as a
/phoneme/ that is to be realized by the sound [ˈʌ].
I think I'll give up.
Or you could use 21st century software.
Google Groups? No thanks.
--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug.
Quinn C
2021-03-18 23:26:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
On Wed, 17 Mar 2021 22:06:20 GMT, Quinn C
Post by Quinn C
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
Post by Stefan Ram
Just ran into the pronunciation of "gluttonous" given as
ˈɡlətn̩əs
. Another source gives
ˈglʌtənəs
Or, one source gave ˈkəl ɚ for "color", which clearly should
be [ˈkʌlɚ]. This shows that, usually, ˈə is not meant to be
a real [ˈə], but an [ˈʌ]. Of course, one should, by all means,
use [ˈʌ] for [ˈʌ]! Maybe the users of ˈə use this as a
/phoneme/ that is to be realized by the sound [ˈʌ].
I think I'll give up.
Or you could use 21st century software.
Google Groups? No thanks.
Of course not. You could know that I regularly advise against it.

But things like Thunderbird, Dialog, MesNews, XanaNews, Claws, Pan - to
name just a few I've used myself.
--
Quinn C
My pronouns are they/them
(or other gender-neutral ones)
Kerr-Mudd,John
2021-03-19 10:31:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 18 Mar 2021 23:26:03 GMT, Quinn C
Post by Quinn C
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
On Wed, 17 Mar 2021 22:06:20 GMT, Quinn C
[Newsreaders]
Post by Quinn C
But things like Thunderbird, Dialog, MesNews, XanaNews, Claws, Pan - to
name just a few I've used myself.
OK; I'll try MesNews. Back in a bit.
--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug.
Snidely
2021-03-19 19:30:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Friday or thereabouts, Kerr-Mudd,John asked ...
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
On Thu, 18 Mar 2021 23:26:03 GMT, Quinn C
Post by Quinn C
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
On Wed, 17 Mar 2021 22:06:20 GMT, Quinn C
[Newsreaders]
Post by Quinn C
But things like Thunderbird, Dialog, MesNews, XanaNews, Claws, Pan - to
name just a few I've used myself.
OK; I'll try MesNews. Back in a bit.
It's only early 21C. I think it's been orphaned, but is robust enough
not to give too many headaches. I'm not sure the author has appeared
in the support groups lately, but I tend to skim (most of the posters
there are francophones).

/dps
--
The presence of this syntax results from the fact that SQLite is really
a Tcl extension that has escaped into the wild.
<http://www.sqlite.org/lang_expr.html>
Peter T. Daniels
2021-03-19 14:47:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quinn C
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
On Wed, 17 Mar 2021 22:06:20 GMT, Quinn C
Post by Quinn C
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
Post by Stefan Ram
Post by Stefan Ram
Just ran into the pronunciation of "gluttonous" given as
ˈɡlətn̩əs
. Another source gives
ˈglʌtənəs
Or, one source gave ˈkəl ɚ for "color", which clearly should
be [ˈkʌlɚ]. This shows that, usually, ˈə is not meant to be
a real [ˈə], but an [ˈʌ]. Of course, one should, by all means,
use [ˈʌ] for [ˈʌ]! Maybe the users of ˈə use this as a
/phoneme/ that is to be realized by the sound [ˈʌ].
I think I'll give up.
Or you could use 21st century software.
Google Groups? No thanks.
Of course not. You could know that I regularly advise against it.
But things like Thunderbird, Dialog, MesNews, XanaNews, Claws, Pan - to
name just a few I've used myself.
The choice of which is orthogonal to the choice of encoding used.

But it seems what he's "giving up" on is the use of phonetic notation,
not attempting to view and transmit what people actually post, because
for however long he's been here, he's had the opportunity to learn ASCII
(Kirshenbaum) phonetic notation and chosen to remain ignorant.
Quinn C
2021-03-17 22:05:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Stefan Ram
Just ran into the pronunciation of "gluttonous" given as
ˈɡlətn̩əs
. Another source gives
ˈglʌtənəs
[...] Of course, one should, by all means,
use [ˈʌ] for [ˈʌ]! Maybe the users of ˈə use this as a
/phoneme/ that is to be realized by the sound [ˈʌ].
Most dictionaries's pronunciations are neither completely phonemic nor
completely phonetic. Merriam-Webster indicates that by enclosing them
neither in // nor [], but in \\.
--
It was frequently the fastest way to find what he was looking
for, provided that he was looking for trouble.
-- L. McMaster Bujold, Gentleman Jole and the Red Queen
Peter Moylan
2021-03-17 23:54:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quinn C
Post by Stefan Ram
Just ran into the pronunciation of "gluttonous" given as
ˈɡlətn̩əs
. Another source gives
ˈglʌtənəs
[...] Of course, one should, by all means,
use [ˈʌ] for [ˈʌ]! Maybe the users of ˈə use this as a
/phoneme/ that is to be realized by the sound [ˈʌ].
Most dictionaries's pronunciations are neither completely phonemic nor
completely phonetic. Merriam-Webster indicates that by enclosing them
neither in // nor [], but in \\.
ObAUE: The possessive plural of dictionary is dictionaries'. A doubling
of the s happens mainly in singular possessives, for example crisis's.
--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org
Quinn C
2021-03-18 23:36:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Quinn C
Most dictionaries's pronunciations are neither completely phonemic nor
completely phonetic. Merriam-Webster indicates that by enclosing them
neither in // nor [], but in \\.
ObAUE: The possessive plural of dictionary is dictionaries'. A doubling
of the s happens mainly in singular possessives, for example crisis's.
Darn. I let myself be persuaded by the magic tester, eh, spell checker,
when I know it doesn't know very well.
--
The wrong body ... now comes not to claim rightness but to
dismantle the system that metes out rightness and wrongness
according to the dictates of various social orders.
-- Jack Halberstam, Unbuilding Gender
Stefan Ram
2021-03-30 17:16:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Stefan Ram
. This would coincide with the view, probably once expressed
here, according to which a stressed [ə] is an [ʌ]. I believe
(This time, in Kirshenbaum again)

One can find some cases where this seems to be confirmed, like

<from>
<***@m> reduced
<'frVm> when stressed

, but this may be so /in this case only/ because here the
sound V is weakened to @, while one can find other cases
where /other/ sounds are weakened to @.

Luciano Canepari indeed has a phoneme /'@/ for a stressed
Schwa.

But this is only an abstract phoneme which in American and
British English then is realized by other sounds:

<fur>
/'f@:r+/ (/r+/ = special r "diaphoneme" for en-US and en-GB)
['fR:] in en-US
['fV":] in en-GB

<hurry>
/'h@+:ri/ (/@+/ = special @ "diaphoneme" for en-US and en-GB)
['hR=i] in en-US ([R=] = half-log [R])
['h%$i] in en-GB ([%] = less open [a], [$] = British [r])

. Luciano Canepari has also invented his own "international"
pronunciation variant, and this indeed has a stressed ['@]
in the above two cases.

Quinn C
2021-03-07 19:30:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
We had Professional Development Day today, all about equity in higher
education. Lots of different speakers. I heard the following
pronunciations.
"dayta" from everyone who used the word, except that one person said
"datta" and immediately corrected it to "dayta"
From "Good Trouble", first episode:

- We'll start you with same datta* entry. *almost like "dahta"
- Dayta entry??
- Yes, datta entry.

Both speakers are Americans; the first actor from California, the second
from Texas, playing a Californian.

Not sure if I'll continue with this show. The whole scene (in a "modern,
hip" software company) was stereotyped to a quite unbelievable extreme.
Among other things, why would there even be any "data antry"?
--
Americans are not that comfortable with being uncomfortable.
-- Veronica Osorio
Peter T. Daniels
2021-03-07 21:03:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Nope.
Post by Quinn C
Post by Jerry Friedman
We had Professional Development Day today, all about equity in higher
education. Lots of different speakers. I heard the following
pronunciations.
"dayta" from everyone who used the word, except that one person said
"datta" and immediately corrected it to "dayta"
- We'll start you with same datta* entry. *almost like "dahta"
- Dayta entry??
- Yes, datta entry.
Both speakers are Americans; the first actor from California, the second
from Texas, playing a Californian.
Not sure if I'll continue with this show. The whole scene (in a "modern,
hip" software company) was stereotyped to a quite unbelievable extreme.
Among other things, why would there even be any "data antry"?
"Good Trouble" is from Congressman John Lewis's posthumous
testament, referring to how he'd been a civil rights "troublemaker"
his entire life. If the show is about a software company, the title
is very strangely chosen.
Quinn C
2021-03-08 00:40:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Nope.
Sorry for piggybacking; I must have pushed the answer key too early when
I went up the thread.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Quinn C
- We'll start you with same datta* entry. *almost like "dahta"
- Dayta entry??
- Yes, datta entry.
Both speakers are Americans; the first actor from California, the second
from Texas, playing a Californian.
Not sure if I'll continue with this show. The whole scene (in a "modern,
hip" software company) was stereotyped to a quite unbelievable extreme.
Among other things, why would there even be any "data antry"?
"Good Trouble" is from Congressman John Lewis's posthumous
testament, referring to how he'd been a civil rights "troublemaker"
his entire life. If the show is about a software company, the title
is very strangely chosen.
It's about two young women, two of the foster children from The Fosters,
starting their professional life. One at a software company, where
she'll struggle as a woman. The other one as a lawyer, and she
immediately gets involved in a case of a police shooting of a black
person.
--
Quinn C
My pronouns are they/them
(or other gender-neutral ones)
Loading...