Pronunciation of longevity

I've heard an equal number of people pronouncing 'longevity' with a soft and hard G. You?

Ramapriya

Peter Moylan

2015-04-07 07:45:10 UTC

Post by Ramapriya D
I've heard an equal number of people pronouncing 'longevity' with a soft and hard G. You?

I have only heard the version with the soft G. It would never even have
occurred to me that a hard-G version might exist.

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia

Athel Cornish-Bowden

2015-04-07 08:47:11 UTC

Post by Ramapriya D
I've heard an equal number of people pronouncing 'longevity' with a soft and hard G. You?

I have only heard the version with the soft G. It would never even have
occurred to me that a hard-G version might exist.

--
athel

James Silverton

2015-04-07 12:47:47 UTC

Post by Ramapriya D
I've heard an equal number of people pronouncing 'longevity' with a
soft and hard G. You?

I have only heard the version with the soft G. It would never even
have occurred to me that a hard-G version might exist.

--
Jim Silverton (Potomac, MD)

Extraneous "not." in Reply To.

Guy Barry

2015-04-07 08:14:56 UTC

Post by Ramapriya D
I've heard an equal number of people pronouncing 'longevity' with a soft and hard G. You?

Soft G for me.

--
Guy Barry

Ramapriya D

2015-04-07 10:15:09 UTC

Post by Ramapriya D
I've heard an equal number of people pronouncing 'longevity' with a soft and hard G. You?

Soft G for me.
--
Guy Barry

Interesting. Just today, an Englishman office colleague pronounced the word with a hard G, i.e. 'long' as in, well, 'long' :)

Ramapriya

Guy Barry

2015-04-07 10:33:38 UTC

Post by Ramapriya D
I've heard an equal number of people pronouncing 'longevity' with a soft
and hard G. You?

Soft G for me.

Interesting. Just today, an Englishman office colleague pronounced the word
with a hard G, i.e. 'long' as in, well, 'long' :)

I've heard it that way, but I think soft "g" is more standard. On the other
hand, "longitude" (whose spelling also suggests a soft "g") is nearly always
pronounced with a hard "g" (sometimes also with a redundant "d" sound after
the "g", which I've never understood).

--
Guy Barry

Peter T. Daniels

2015-04-07 12:31:18 UTC

Post by Ramapriya D
I've heard an equal number of people pronouncing 'longevity' with a soft
and hard G. You?

Soft G for me.

Post by Ramapriya D
Interesting. Just today, an Englishman office colleague pronounced the word
with a hard G, i.e. 'long' as in, well, 'long' :)

(Longg-ditude?) Not around here, it isn't. (Either feature.)

Guy Barry

2015-04-07 18:51:26 UTC

Post by Guy Barry
I've heard it that way, but I think soft "g" is more standard. On the other
hand, "longitude" (whose spelling also suggests a soft "g") is nearly always
pronounced with a hard "g" (sometimes also with a redundant "d" sound after
the "g", which I've never understood).

(Longg-ditude?) Not around here, it isn't. (Either feature.)

To clarify, I normally hear ['lA.NgIt,ju:d], but (mostly from older
speakers) I occasionally hear ['lA.NdIt,ju:d] - not ['lA.NgdIt,ju:d], which
is what my post above probably suggested. No idea where the [d] came from
though.

--
Guy Barry

Peter T. Daniels

2015-04-07 20:16:33 UTC

(Longg-ditude?) Not around here, it isn't. (Either feature.)

That one's not so hard to explain: pattern pressure from "latitude." It's
like why Latin has quattuor instead of pattuor -- the following quinque.
They're saying "longtitude," and either it's flapped like an American, which
in your quaint British way you interpret as /d/, or else it's voiced because
of the surrounding voiced segments. I wouldn't be surprised if the other one
is [l&dituwd].

Will Parsons

2015-04-07 20:40:31 UTC

(Longg-ditude?) Not around here, it isn't. (Either feature.)

That one's not so hard to explain: pattern pressure from "latitude." It's
like why Latin has quattuor instead of pattuor -- the following quinque.

I think you've got that backwards - if anything, quinque instead of
*pinque because of the preceding quattuor (maybe).

--
Will

Peter T. Daniels

2015-04-07 21:13:36 UTC

Post by Will Parsons

(Longg-ditude?) Not around here, it isn't. (Either feature.)

That one's not so hard to explain: pattern pressure from "latitude." It's
like why Latin has quattuor instead of pattuor -- the following quinque.

I think you've got that backwards - if anything, quinque instead of
*pinque because of the preceding quattuor (maybe).

Sounds right. But regressive assimilation is more usual!

Adam Funk

2015-04-08 09:26:11 UTC

Post by Will Parsons

Post by Guy Barry
To clarify, I normally hear ['lA.NgIt,ju:d], but (mostly from older
speakers) I occasionally hear ['lA.NdIt,ju:d] - not ['lA.NgdIt,ju:d], which
is what my post above probably suggested. No idea where the [d] came from
though.

That one's not so hard to explain: pattern pressure from "latitude." It's
like why Latin has quattuor instead of pattuor -- the following quinque.

I think you've got that backwards - if anything, quinque instead of
*pinque because of the preceding quattuor (maybe).

Well, they're both /f/ or similar in Germanic languages. How does the
Greek "tessera" tie in?

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Sounds right. But regressive assimilation is more usual!

What do you mean by "regressive" --- just in reverse numerical order?

--
No right of private conversation was enumerated in the Constitution.
I don't suppose it occurred to anyone at the time that it could be
prevented. [Whitfield Diffie]

Guy Barry

2015-04-08 10:28:59 UTC

Post by Adam Funk

Post by Will Parsons

Post by Guy Barry
To clarify, I normally hear ['lA.NgIt,ju:d], but (mostly from older
speakers) I occasionally hear ['lA.NdIt,ju:d] - not
['lA.NgdIt,ju:d], which
is what my post above probably suggested. No idea where the [d] came from
though.

That one's not so hard to explain: pattern pressure from "latitude." It's
like why Latin has quattuor instead of pattuor -- the following quinque.

I think you've got that backwards - if anything, quinque instead of
*pinque because of the preceding quattuor (maybe).

I was under the impression that the "qu" at the start of "quinque" came
about by assimilation to the "qu" in the second syllable, not the "qu" of
"quattuor". But I can't find anything to back this up.

Post by Adam Funk
Well, they're both /f/ or similar in Germanic languages. How does the
Greek "tessera" tie in?

It is odd that in so many Indo-European languages not only the words for
"four" and "five", but also the words for "six" and "seven", begin with the
same phoneme. Pattern or just coincidence?

--
Guy Barry

Guy Barry

2015-04-08 10:42:02 UTC

Post by Guy Barry
It is odd that in so many Indo-European languages not only the words for
"four" and "five", but also the words for "six" and "seven", begin with the
same phoneme. Pattern or just coincidence?

I've just remembered the existence of the following useful Wikipedia page
where you can judge for yourself:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_numbers_in_various_languages#Indo-European_languages

--
Guy Barry

Peter T. Daniels

2015-04-08 13:08:28 UTC

Post by Adam Funk

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Sounds right. But regressive assimilation is more usual!

What do you mean by "regressive" --- just in reverse numerical order?

"Regressive assimilation" means that something earlier in the utterance
changes to resemble something later in the utterance, because your speech
organs are getting into position to produce what's coming up, as opposed
to staying in their former configuration too long.

The most familiar example is German Umlaut: Fuss / Fuesse, where the fronting
of the first vowel is an anticipation of the fronter vowel in the next syllable.

In English we have rampant palatalization, where alveolar obstruents get
palatalized before palatal consonants or vowels. adopt / adoption, fuse /
fusion.

Adam Funk

2015-04-09 11:11:57 UTC

Post by Adam Funk

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Sounds right. But regressive assimilation is more usual!

What do you mean by "regressive" --- just in reverse numerical order?

"Regressive assimilation" means that something earlier in the utterance
changes to resemble something later in the utterance, because your speech
organs are getting into position to produce what's coming up, as opposed
to staying in their former configuration too long.
The most familiar example is German Umlaut: Fuss / Fuesse, where the fronting
of the first vowel is an anticipation of the fronter vowel in the next syllable.
In English we have rampant palatalization, where alveolar obstruents get
palatalized before palatal consonants or vowels. adopt / adoption, fuse /
fusion.

OK, that's what I thought it normally meant. The 4--5 vs 5--4 thing
confused the issue for me.

--
I was born, lucky me, in a land that I love.
Though I'm poor, I am free.
When I grow I shall fight; for this land I shall die.
May the sun never set. --- The Kinks

James Hogg

2015-04-07 21:35:51 UTC

(Longg-ditude?) Not around here, it isn't. (Either feature.)

That one's not so hard to explain: pattern pressure from "latitude." It's
like why Latin has quattuor instead of pattuor -- the following quinque.

Or Latin has quinque instead of pinque because of the preceding
quattuor. The reconstructed IE forms are kwetwer and penkwe.

Post by Peter T. Daniels
They're saying "longtitude," and either it's flapped like an American, which
in your quaint British way you interpret as /d/, or else it's voiced because
of the surrounding voiced segments. I wouldn't be surprised if the other one
is [l&dituwd].

--
James

CDB

2015-04-08 11:47:55 UTC

This post might be inappropriate. Click to display it.

Stefan Ram

2015-04-11 13:52:53 UTC

Post by CDB
This older speaker says ['lAndZI,tjud], except that the vowel part of
the last syllable is not [ju] but a kind of fronted, half-rounded
(tense?) [u] that I don't have a symbol for.

Canepari has not given a pronunciation for »longitude«, but
for »situation« and »statue«, wherein he uses the symbol (v),
which actually /is/ a fronted (u), for the sound of the <u>.

I am refering to his /American/ English phonetics.

»(v)« is not the actual graphical symbol he uses, but my ASCII
transliteration.

The rounded vocoids
back back front front
central central central
.--------.--------.--------.--------.--------.
| | | | | |
| (u) | (v) | (:) | (y) | (i) | fully close
| | | | | |
|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|
| | | | | |
| (U) | (V) | (2) | (Y) | (I) | near-close
| | | | | |
|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|
| | | | | |
| (o) | (c) | (@) | (>) | (e) | close-mid
| | | | | |
|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|
| | | | | |
| (Q) | (6) | (5) | (8) | (E) | open-mid
| | | | | |
|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|
| | | | | |
| (O) | (^) | (4) | (%) | (3) | near-open
| | | | | |
|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|
| | | | | |
| (#) | (q) | (a) | (A) | ($) | fully open
| | | | | |
'--------'--------'--------'--------'--------'

In my ASCII notation, the half-rounding might be given as »[v)«.

The »u« of »situation«, according to Canepari, might also be
weakened as [V] that is, a (u) fronted, centered and derounded.

If it is too difficult to produce that sound, one can
replace it by a schwa without causing too much harm.

Robert Bannister

2015-04-08 00:32:41 UTC

(Longg-ditude?) Not around here, it isn't. (Either feature.)

To clarify, I normally hear ['lA.NgIt,ju:d], but (mostly from older
speakers) I occasionally hear ['lA.NdIt,ju:d] - not ['lA.NgdIt,ju:d],
which is what my post above probably suggested. No idea where the [d]
came from though.

I'm puzzled by your "g" in ['lA.NgIt,ju:d]. I think I have heard it that
way, but (mostly by the people who don't insert d) I hear it as
/'lA.NItju:d/.

--
Robert Bannister - 1940-71 SE England
1972-now W Australia

Peter Moylan

2015-04-08 05:46:47 UTC

Post by Guy Barry
I've heard it that way, but I think soft "g" is more standard.
On the other hand, "longitude" (whose spelling also suggests a
soft "g") is nearly always pronounced with a hard "g"
(sometimes also with a redundant "d" sound after the "g", which
I've never understood).

(Longg-ditude?) Not around here, it isn't. (Either feature.)

To clarify, I normally hear ['lA.NgIt,ju:d], but (mostly from older
speakers) I occasionally hear ['lA.NdIt,ju:d] - not ['lA.NgdIt,ju:d],
which is what my post above probably suggested. No idea where the [d]
came from though.

I'm puzzled by your "g" in ['lA.NgIt,ju:d]. I think I have heard it that
way, but (mostly by the people who don't insert d) I hear it as
/'lA.NItju:d/.

The [Ng] version is the one I've always used. I don't think I've ever
heard it with a bare [N].

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia

Ramapriya D

2015-04-07 12:47:19 UTC

I've *never* yet heard 'longitude' pronounced with a soft 'g'! What world am I living in, I wonder? :)

Ramapriya

Jerry Friedman

2015-04-07 13:56:12 UTC

I've *never* yet heard 'longitude' pronounced with a soft 'g'! What world am I living in, I wonder? :)

Not America. I occasionally hear "longitude" with a hard "g", but AHD
doesn't mention it and M-W calls it British.

--
Jerry Friedman

Oliver Cromm

2015-04-07 20:55:05 UTC

I've *never* yet heard 'longitude' pronounced with a soft 'g'! What world am I living in, I wonder? :)

Not America. I occasionally hear "longitude" with a hard "g", but AHD
doesn't mention it and M-W calls it British.

Collins and Cambridge regard soft g the primary pronunciation even
for British. Oxford has it the other way round.

--
Bug:
An elusive creature living in a program that makes it incorrect.
The activity of "debugging," or removing bugs from a program, ends
when people get tired of doing it, not when the bugs are removed.

Robert Bannister

2015-04-08 00:35:46 UTC

I've *never* yet heard 'longitude' pronounced with a soft 'g'! What world am I living in, I wonder? :)

Not America. I occasionally hear "longitude" with a hard "g", but AHD
doesn't mention it and M-W calls it British.

Collins and Cambridge regard soft g the primary pronunciation even
for British. Oxford has it the other way round.

That is strange. I can't say I've ever heard a soft g. I haven't often
heard a hard g either. Unless you come from the north of England, there
is no "g" sound in "long".

--
Robert Bannister - 1940-71 SE England
1972-now W Australia

John Dawkins

2015-04-08 02:16:04 UTC

I've *never* yet heard 'longitude' pronounced with a soft 'g'! What world
am I living in, I wonder? :)

Not America. I occasionally hear "longitude" with a hard "g", but AHD
doesn't mention it and M-W calls it British.

Collins and Cambridge regard soft g the primary pronunciation even
for British. Oxford has it the other way round.

That is strange. I can't say I've ever heard a soft g. I haven't often
heard a hard g either. Unless you come from the north of England, there
is no "g" sound in "long".

All those "g"s are in Long Island.

--
J.

Oliver Cromm

2015-04-08 04:03:03 UTC

Post by Ramapriya D
I've *never* yet heard 'longitude' pronounced with a soft
'g'! What world am I living in, I wonder? :)

Not America. I occasionally hear "longitude" with a hard "g", but AHD
doesn't mention it and M-W calls it British.

Collins and Cambridge regard soft g the primary pronunciation even
for British. Oxford has it the other way round.

That is strange. I can't say I've ever heard a soft g.

Forvo speakers all agree on soft g, 2 US 1 UK.

Post by Robert Bannister
I haven't often
heard a hard g either. Unless you come from the north of England, there
is no "g" sound in "long".

Not in "long", sure, but "longer" or "longitude" without one? No
dictionary I checked suggests that variant.

--
If Helen Keller is alone in the forest and falls down, does she
make a sound?

Peter Duncanson [BrE]

2015-04-08 11:03:24 UTC

On Wed, 8 Apr 2015 00:03:03 -0400, Oliver Cromm

Post by Ramapriya D
I've *never* yet heard 'longitude' pronounced with a soft
'g'! What world am I living in, I wonder? :)

Not America. I occasionally hear "longitude" with a hard "g", but AHD
doesn't mention it and M-W calls it British.

Collins and Cambridge regard soft g the primary pronunciation even
for British. Oxford has it the other way round.

That is strange. I can't say I've ever heard a soft g.

Forvo speakers all agree on soft g, 2 US 1 UK.

Post by Robert Bannister
I haven't often
heard a hard g either. Unless you come from the north of England, there
is no "g" sound in "long".

Not in "long", sure, but "longer" or "longitude" without one? No
dictionary I checked suggests that variant.

I have heard those occasionally (in BrE).

I have also heard one or two people use "longditude" with no "g", hard
or soft.

--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

Oliver Cromm

2015-04-08 17:36:37 UTC

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Wed, 8 Apr 2015 00:03:03 -0400, Oliver Cromm

Post by Ramapriya D
I've *never* yet heard 'longitude' pronounced with a soft
'g'! What world am I living in, I wonder? :)

Not America. I occasionally hear "longitude" with a hard "g", but AHD
doesn't mention it and M-W calls it British.

Collins and Cambridge regard soft g the primary pronunciation even
for British. Oxford has it the other way round.

That is strange. I can't say I've ever heard a soft g.

Forvo speakers all agree on soft g, 2 US 1 UK.

Post by Robert Bannister
I haven't often
heard a hard g either. Unless you come from the north of England, there
is no "g" sound in "long".

Not in "long", sure, but "longer" or "longitude" without one? No
dictionary I checked suggests that variant.

I have heard those occasionally (in BrE).
I have also heard one or two people use "longditude" with no "g", hard
or soft.

When there's a d, for whatever reason, I wouldn't expect a g, hard
or soft. The hard g would be almost impractical.

--
Failover worked - the system failed, then it was over.
(freely translated from a remark by Dietz Proepper
in de.alt.sysadmin.recovery)

James Silverton

2015-04-08 17:41:18 UTC

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Wed, 8 Apr 2015 00:03:03 -0400, Oliver Cromm

Post by Ramapriya D
I've *never* yet heard 'longitude' pronounced with a soft
'g'! What world am I living in, I wonder? :)

Not America. I occasionally hear "longitude" with a hard "g", but AHD
doesn't mention it and M-W calls it British.

Collins and Cambridge regard soft g the primary pronunciation even
for British. Oxford has it the other way round.

That is strange. I can't say I've ever heard a soft g.

Forvo speakers all agree on soft g, 2 US 1 UK.

Post by Robert Bannister
I haven't often
heard a hard g either. Unless you come from the north of England, there
is no "g" sound in "long".

Not in "long", sure, but "longer" or "longitude" without one? No
dictionary I checked suggests that variant.

I have heard those occasionally (in BrE).
I have also heard one or two people use "longditude" with no "g", hard
or soft.

When there's a d, for whatever reason, I wouldn't expect a g, hard
or soft. The hard g would be almost impractical.

The "long dit" pronunciation is quite common. I caught myself using it.

--
Jim Silverton (Potomac, MD)

Extraneous "not." in Reply To.

Peter T. Daniels

2015-04-08 21:29:22 UTC

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Wed, 8 Apr 2015 00:03:03 -0400, Oliver Cromm

Post by Ramapriya D
I've *never* yet heard 'longitude' pronounced with a soft
'g'! What world am I living in, I wonder? :)

Not America. I occasionally hear "longitude" with a hard "g", but AHD
doesn't mention it and M-W calls it British.

Collins and Cambridge regard soft g the primary pronunciation even
for British. Oxford has it the other way round.

That is strange. I can't say I've ever heard a soft g.

Forvo speakers all agree on soft g, 2 US 1 UK.

Post by Robert Bannister
I haven't often
heard a hard g either. Unless you come from the north of England, there
is no "g" sound in "long".

Not in "long", sure, but "longer" or "longitude" without one? No
dictionary I checked suggests that variant.

I have heard those occasionally (in BrE).
I have also heard one or two people use "longditude" with no "g", hard
or soft.

When there's a d, for whatever reason, I wouldn't expect a g, hard
or soft. The hard g would be almost impractical.

Ogden Nash would beg to differ.

Oliver Cromm

2015-04-08 21:44:08 UTC

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Wed, 8 Apr 2015 00:03:03 -0400, Oliver Cromm

Post by Ramapriya D
I've *never* yet heard 'longitude' pronounced with a soft
'g'! What world am I living in, I wonder? :)

Not America. I occasionally hear "longitude" with a hard "g", but AHD
doesn't mention it and M-W calls it British.

Collins and Cambridge regard soft g the primary pronunciation even
for British. Oxford has it the other way round.

That is strange. I can't say I've ever heard a soft g.

Forvo speakers all agree on soft g, 2 US 1 UK.

Post by Robert Bannister
I haven't often
heard a hard g either. Unless you come from the north of England, there
is no "g" sound in "long".

Not in "long", sure, but "longer" or "longitude" without one? No
dictionary I checked suggests that variant.

I have heard those occasionally (in BrE).
I have also heard one or two people use "longditude" with no "g", hard
or soft.

When there's a d, for whatever reason, I wouldn't expect a g, hard
or soft. The hard g would be almost impractical.

Ogden Nash would beg to differ.

He wouldn't have to, not being Ongden Nash.

--
The Eskimoes had fifty-two names for snow because it was
important to them, there ought to be as many for love.
-- Margaret Atwood, Surfacing (novel), p.106

Mark Brader

2015-04-07 16:36:30 UTC

This post might be inappropriate. Click to display it.

James Hogg

2015-04-08 05:20:31 UTC

On the other hand, "longitude" (whose spelling also suggests a soft "g")

Not really; hard G is also common before I. Consider "gift",
"gig", "gird", "girl", "git", "give", and all the "gim-" words.

The "rule" that G is softened before E or I comes from late Latin. It
was never a rule for English, but we've been fooled into thinking it
is because of all the English words imported from French.
Anglo-Saxon did soften C before I, apparently independently of Latin,
but Norman scribes messed that up by changing the spelling of such a
"c" to "ch".

And Old English did soften G before front vowels, but not with the same
result as in French. That's where we get some of our words beginning
with Y, as you see if you compare yard, yarn, yellow, yield with German
Garten, Garn, gelb, gelten.

--
James

Oliver Cromm

2015-04-08 17:36:37 UTC

On the other hand, "longitude" (whose spelling also suggests a soft "g")

Not really; hard G is also common before I. Consider "gift", "gig",
"gird", "girl", "git", "give", and all the "gim-" words.

The "rule" that G is softened before E or I comes from late Latin. It
was never a rule for English, but we've been fooled into thinking it is
because of all the English words imported from French.

And that's why it applies to longitude, which looks Latin and came
to English via French.

--
A chrysanthemum by any other name would be easier to spell.
Peter Moylan in alt.usage.english

Peter Moylan

2015-04-09 03:25:18 UTC

On the other hand, "longitude" (whose spelling also suggests a soft "g")

Not really; hard G is also common before I. Consider "gift", "gig",
"gird", "girl", "git", "give", and all the "gim-" words.

The "rule" that G is softened before E or I comes from late Latin. It
was never a rule for English, but we've been fooled into thinking it is
because of all the English words imported from French.

And that's why it applies to longitude, which looks Latin and came
to English via French.

But did it? I was under the impression that both French and English got
it directly from Latin, via independent paths.

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia

Peter Duncanson [BrE]

2015-04-09 10:37:39 UTC

On Thu, 09 Apr 2015 13:25:18 +1000, Peter Moylan

On the other hand, "longitude" (whose spelling also suggests a soft "g")

Not really; hard G is also common before I. Consider "gift", "gig",
"gird", "girl", "git", "give", and all the "gim-" words.

The "rule" that G is softened before E or I comes from late Latin. It
was never a rule for English, but we've been fooled into thinking it is
because of all the English words imported from French.

And that's why it applies to longitude, which looks Latin and came
to English via French.

But did it? I was under the impression that both French and English got
it directly from Latin, via independent paths.

That is the opinon of the OED:

Etymology: < Latin longitudo, < longus long adj.1 Compare French
longitude.

--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

Oliver Cromm

2015-04-09 17:13:13 UTC

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Thu, 09 Apr 2015 13:25:18 +1000, Peter Moylan

On the other hand, "longitude" (whose spelling also suggests a soft "g")

Not really; hard G is also common before I. Consider "gift", "gig",
"gird", "girl", "git", "give", and all the "gim-" words.

The "rule" that G is softened before E or I comes from late Latin. It
was never a rule for English, but we've been fooled into thinking it is
because of all the English words imported from French.

And that's why it applies to longitude, which looks Latin and came
to English via French.

But did it? I was under the impression that both French and English got
it directly from Latin, via independent paths.

Etymology: < Latin longitudo, < longus long adj.1 Compare French
longitude.

I see. I somehow managed to read the etymology first in two
dictionaries that mentioned French, but all others seem to be on
"your" side.

Then the question is how gi/ge was treated in direct borrowings
from Latin around that time (late 14c according to etymonline).

--
XML combines all the inefficiency of text-based formats with most
of the unreadability of binary formats.
Oren Tirosh, comp.lang.python

Robert Bannister

2015-04-08 00:28:04 UTC

Post by Ramapriya D
I've heard an equal number of people pronouncing 'longevity' with a

soft

Post by Ramapriya D
and hard G. You?

Soft G for me.

Interesting. Just today, an Englishman office colleague pronounced the
word with a hard G, i.e. 'long' as in, well, 'long' :)

I've heard it that way, but I think soft "g" is more standard. On the
other hand, "longitude" (whose spelling also suggests a soft "g") is
nearly always pronounced with a hard "g" (sometimes also with a
redundant "d" sound after the "g", which I've never understood).

I think I learnt the word early on as "long-ditude" and it is very hard
to get rid of it. I also have to think hard to remember the spelling if
I write "longitude".

--
Robert Bannister - 1940-71 SE England
1972-now W Australia

Steve Hayes

2015-04-08 05:54:32 UTC

On Wed, 08 Apr 2015 08:28:04 +0800, Robert Bannister

Post by Ramapriya D
I've heard an equal number of people pronouncing 'longevity' with a

soft

Post by Ramapriya D
and hard G. You?

Soft G for me.

Interesting. Just today, an Englishman office colleague pronounced the
word with a hard G, i.e. 'long' as in, well, 'long' :)

I've heard it that way, but I think soft "g" is more standard. On the
other hand, "longitude" (whose spelling also suggests a soft "g") is
nearly always pronounced with a hard "g" (sometimes also with a
redundant "d" sound after the "g", which I've never understood).

I think I learnt the word early on as "long-ditude" and it is very hard
to get rid of it. I also have to think hard to remember the spelling if
I write "longitude".

I tried pronouncing it with a sif g, and found it difficult because of
the duplicateed consonants:

londjichewed,

--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://khanya.wordpress.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

Mark Brader

2015-04-07 16:32:32 UTC

Post by Ramapriya D
I've heard an equal number of people pronouncing 'longevity' with a soft
and hard G. You?

Soft G for me.

Agreed; that's the only way I've heard it. I would have thought that
if another pronunciation was used, an "ng" sound would be more likely
than a hard G.

Post by Ramapriya D
Interesting. Just today, an Englishman office colleague pronounced the
word with a hard G, i.e. 'long' as in, well, 'long' :)

There, see? That's an "ng", not a hard G. Hard G is with "ge" as in "get".

--
Mark Brader | "No, I'm disagreeing with you. That doesn't mean I'm not
***@vex.net | listening to you or understanding what you're saying:
Toronto | I'm doing all three at the same time." -- Aaron Sorkin

My text in this article is in the public domain.

Ramapriya D

2015-04-08 01:19:19 UTC

Post by Ramapriya D
I've heard an equal number of people pronouncing 'longevity' with a soft
and hard G. You?

Soft G for me.

Agreed; that's the only way I've heard it. I would have thought that
if another pronunciation was used, an "ng" sound would be more likely
than a hard G.

Post by Ramapriya D
Interesting. Just today, an Englishman office colleague pronounced the
word with a hard G, i.e. 'long' as in, well, 'long' :)

There, see? That's an "ng", not a hard G. Hard G is with "ge" as in "get".

To amply clarify, by 'soft g', I meant a J-type pronunciation of G, e.g. germ, gerund, etc. I've heard both 'lonJevity' and 'longevity' but never 'longitude', always 'lonJitude'!

Ramapriya

Peter Moylan

2015-04-11 07:52:46 UTC

Post by Ramapriya D
I've heard an equal number of people pronouncing 'longevity' with a soft
and hard G. You?

Soft G for me.

Interesting. Just today, an Englishman office colleague pronounced the word with a hard G, i.e. 'long' as in, well, 'long' :)

There is no hard G in "long". For that matter, there is no soft G in
"long". Instead it has "ng" ([N] in ASCII IPA), which is a totally
different consonant.

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
JE SUIS CHARLIE

Peter Duncanson [BrE]

2015-04-11 12:44:40 UTC

Post by Ramapriya D
I've heard an equal number of people pronouncing 'longevity' with a soft
and hard G. You?

Soft G for me.

Interesting. Just today, an Englishman office colleague pronounced the word with a hard G, i.e. 'long' as in, well, 'long' :)

There is no hard G in "long". For that matter, there is no soft G in
"long". Instead it has "ng" ([N] in ASCII IPA), which is a totally
different consonant.

There is in some accents in England.

The book _Dialects_ by Peter Trudgill says:

"LONG AS LONG OR LONGG
In most dialects of English, in the British Isles and overseas, the g in
words such as long is nor pronounced anymore, and winger and finger do
not rhyme. In one area of England, however, the original pronunciation
is still used - the g is pronounced so that the hard g of give can be
heard at the end of words like long and thing. This area includes
Liverpool, Manchester, Chester, Derby and Birmingham. It covers
Merseyside, Greater Manchester, Cheshire, Staffordshire, West Midlands
(with neighbouring areas of Warwickshire and Worcestershire) Northern
Shropshire and Derbyshire."

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=irqHAgAAQBAJ&lpg=PA38&ots=Z25D0NtN2d&dq=hard%20g%20in%20%22long%22%20dialect&pg=PA38#v=onepage&q=hard%20g%20in%20%22long%22%20dialect&f=false
or
http://tinyurl.com/q87q4bs

In my experience that hard-g is not universal in those areas.

--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

Peter T. Daniels

2015-04-11 13:59:31 UTC

Post by Ramapriya D
I've heard an equal number of people pronouncing 'longevity' with a soft
and hard G. You?

Soft G for me.

Interesting. Just today, an Englishman office colleague pronounced the word with a hard G, i.e. 'long' as in, well, 'long' :)

There is no hard G in "long". For that matter, there is no soft G in
"long". Instead it has "ng" ([N] in ASCII IPA), which is a totally
different consonant.

There is in some accents in England.
"LONG AS LONG OR LONGG
In most dialects of English, in the British Isles and overseas, the g in
words such as long is nor pronounced anymore, and winger and finger do
not rhyme. In one area of England, however, the original pronunciation
is still used - the g is pronounced so that the hard g of give can be
heard at the end of words like long and thing. This area includes
Liverpool, Manchester, Chester, Derby and Birmingham. It covers
Merseyside, Greater Manchester, Cheshire, Staffordshire, West Midlands
(with neighbouring areas of Warwickshire and Worcestershire) Northern
Shropshire and Derbyshire."

Also Long Island, New York (east of New York City), giving rise to the
jocular orthography <Long Guyland>.

Richard Yates

2015-04-11 14:58:48 UTC

On Sat, 11 Apr 2015 13:44:40 +0100, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"

Post by Ramapriya D
I've heard an equal number of people pronouncing 'longevity' with a soft
and hard G. You?

Soft G for me.

Interesting. Just today, an Englishman office colleague pronounced the word with a hard G, i.e. 'long' as in, well, 'long' :)

There is no hard G in "long". For that matter, there is no soft G in
"long". Instead it has "ng" ([N] in ASCII IPA), which is a totally
different consonant.

There is in some accents in England.

And the US. Notably that of many inhabitants of Long Island, aha
"Long-Gisland."

Tony Cooper

2015-04-11 15:05:40 UTC

On Sat, 11 Apr 2015 07:58:48 -0700, Richard Yates

Post by Richard Yates
On Sat, 11 Apr 2015 13:44:40 +0100, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"

Post by Ramapriya D
I've heard an equal number of people pronouncing 'longevity' with a soft
and hard G. You?

Soft G for me.

Interesting. Just today, an Englishman office colleague pronounced the word with a hard G, i.e. 'long' as in, well, 'long' :)

There is no hard G in "long". For that matter, there is no soft G in
"long". Instead it has "ng" ([N] in ASCII IPA), which is a totally
different consonant.

There is in some accents in England.

And the US. Notably that of many inhabitants of Long Island, aha
"Long-Gisland."

There are some people who put a slight "uh" after an ending "g":
"long-uh". They seem to do it with short-sounding words only. It
wouldn't be hear with "expiring", but would be "going".

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando FL

Peter T. Daniels

2015-04-11 17:22:20 UTC

Post by Tony Cooper
On Sat, 11 Apr 2015 07:58:48 -0700, Richard Yates

Post by Richard Yates
On Sat, 11 Apr 2015 13:44:40 +0100, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"

Post by Peter Moylan
There is no hard G in "long". For that matter, there is no soft G in
"long". Instead it has "ng" ([N] in ASCII IPA), which is a totally
different consonant.

There is in some accents in England.

And the US. Notably that of many inhabitants of Long Island, aha
"Long-Gisland."

Normally, as I said an hour earlier, spelled "Long Guyland." This is what
Labov calls a "marker," i.e. a specific dialect peculiarity that's within
the consciousness of both the dialect's speakers and their neighbors. They
probably also say "long [g]afternoon" but no one would notice.

Post by Tony Cooper
"long-uh". They seem to do it with short-sounding words only. It
wouldn't be hear with "expiring", but would be "going".

Where, exactly, have you heard people pronounce a [g] at the end of those
two -[N#] words?

Peter Young

2015-04-11 17:52:50 UTC

Post by Tony Cooper
On Sat, 11 Apr 2015 07:58:48 -0700, Richard Yates

[snip]

Post by Tony Cooper
"long-uh". They seem to do it with short-sounding words only. It
wouldn't be hear with "expiring", but would be "going".

Where, exactly, have you heard people pronounce a [g] at the end of those
two -[N#] words?

In large areas of the North Midlands and North of England. I think
we're discussed this before.

Peter.

--
Peter Young, (BrE, RP), Consultant Anaesthetist, 1975-2004.
(US equivalent: Certified Anesthesiologist) (AUE Re)
Cheltenham and Gloucester, UK. Now happily retired.
http://pnyoung.orpheusweb.co.uk

Peter T. Daniels

2015-04-11 17:57:53 UTC

Post by Tony Cooper
On Sat, 11 Apr 2015 07:58:48 -0700, Richard Yates

[snip]

Post by Tony Cooper
"long-uh". They seem to do it with short-sounding words only. It
wouldn't be hear with "expiring", but would be "going".

Where, exactly, have you heard people pronounce a [g] at the end of those
two -[N#] words?

In large areas of the North Midlands and North of England. I think
we're discussed this before.

When was Tony there?

Tony Cooper

2015-04-11 18:35:09 UTC

On Sat, 11 Apr 2015 10:57:53 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Tony Cooper
On Sat, 11 Apr 2015 07:58:48 -0700, Richard Yates

[snip]

Post by Tony Cooper
"long-uh". They seem to do it with short-sounding words only. It
wouldn't be hear with "expiring", but would be "going".

Where, exactly, have you heard people pronounce a [g] at the end of those
two -[N#] words?

In large areas of the North Midlands and North of England. I think
we're discussed this before.

When was Tony there?

As a tourist, I've never paid that much attention to what area I was
in regarding descriptions like "North Midlands". However,
cross-checking by cities, I have been in Chester, Cheshire and other
cities in the North Midlands. The Chester Cathedral is magnificent.

As to the North of England, I believe Yorkshire counts and I've been
to several cities in Yorkshire. We were a week in York and made
several day-trips from there. Looking at a map, it seems that
Middlesbrough is the city furthest north that I remember being in.

Your question, though, contributes nothing to the subject. As so many
of yours.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando FL

Peter T. Daniels

2015-04-11 21:18:56 UTC

Post by Tony Cooper
On Sat, 11 Apr 2015 10:57:53 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Tony Cooper
On Sat, 11 Apr 2015 07:58:48 -0700, Richard Yates

[snip]

Post by Tony Cooper
"long-uh". They seem to do it with short-sounding words only. It
wouldn't be hear with "expiring", but would be "going".

Where, exactly, have you heard people pronounce a [g] at the end of those
two -[N#] words?

In large areas of the North Midlands and North of England. I think
we're discussed this before.

When was Tony there?

As a tourist, I've never paid that much attention to what area I was
in regarding descriptions like "North Midlands". However,
cross-checking by cities, I have been in Chester, Cheshire and other
cities in the North Midlands. The Chester Cathedral is magnificent.
As to the North of England, I believe Yorkshire counts and I've been
to several cities in Yorkshire. We were a week in York and made
several day-trips from there. Looking at a map, it seems that
Middlesbrough is the city furthest north that I remember being in.
Your question, though, contributes nothing to the subject. As so many
of yours.

And while you were there, did you hear people appending [g]s and then shwas
to words ending in [N]?

Peter Young

2015-04-11 20:47:31 UTC

Post by Tony Cooper
On Sat, 11 Apr 2015 07:58:48 -0700, Richard Yates

[snip]

Post by Tony Cooper
"long-uh". They seem to do it with short-sounding words only. It
wouldn't be hear with "expiring", but would be "going".

Where, exactly, have you heard people pronounce a [g] at the end of those
two -[N#] words?

In large areas of the North Midlands and North of England. I think
we're discussed this before.

When was Tony there?

No eye deer, but he asked *where people*, which I imagine includes me,
heard this pronunciation, so I told him.

Peter.

--
Peter Young, (BrE, RP), Consultant Anaesthetist, 1975-2004.
(US equivalent: Certified Anesthesiologist) (AUE Re)
Cheltenham and Gloucester, UK. Now happily retired.
http://pnyoung.orpheusweb.co.uk

Peter T. Daniels

2015-04-11 21:21:03 UTC

Post by Tony Cooper
"long-uh". They seem to do it with short-sounding words only. It
wouldn't be hear with "expiring", but would be "going".

Where, exactly, have you heard people pronounce a [g] at the end of those
two -[N#] words?

In large areas of the North Midlands and North of England. I think
we're discussed this before.

When was Tony there?

No eye deer, but he asked *where people*, which I imagine includes me,
heard this pronunciation, so I told him.

No, I said to Tony, "Where, exactly, did you hear ..." what he described
"some people" as doing.

Janet

2015-04-11 21:43:32 UTC

Post by Tony Cooper
On Sat, 11 Apr 2015 07:58:48 -0700, Richard Yates

[snip]

Post by Tony Cooper
"long-uh". They seem to do it with short-sounding words only. It
wouldn't be hear with "expiring", but would be "going".

Where, exactly, have you heard people pronounce a [g] at the end of those
two -[N#] words?

In large areas of the North Midlands and North of England. I think
we're discussed this before.

When was Tony there?

Does anyone need to be in England to hear English accents?

Florida is a very popular holiday destination for people living in
the North Midlands and North of England.

Janet

Tony Cooper

2015-04-11 22:25:56 UTC

Post by Janet

Post by Tony Cooper
On Sat, 11 Apr 2015 07:58:48 -0700, Richard Yates

[snip]

Post by Tony Cooper
"long-uh". They seem to do it with short-sounding words only. It
wouldn't be hear with "expiring", but would be "going".

Where, exactly, have you heard people pronounce a [g] at the end of those
two -[N#] words?

In large areas of the North Midlands and North of England. I think
we're discussed this before.

When was Tony there?

Does anyone need to be in England to hear English accents?
Florida is a very popular holiday destination for people living in
the North Midlands and North of England.

It really doesn't make any difference where I heard people do it or
where those people are from. Some people do add the "uh" to some
final "g"s. PTD is just being his usual obstreperous self. I think
he posts things like this hoping that someone will pay attention to
him.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando FL

Reinhold {Rey} Aman

2015-04-11 22:54:50 UTC

PTD is just being his usual obstreperous self. I think he posts
things like this hoping that someone will pay attention to him.

PeteY is a lonesome *attention-whore*.

--
Reinhold {Rey} Aman

Peter T. Daniels

2015-04-12 02:38:25 UTC

Post by Janet

Post by Tony Cooper
On Sat, 11 Apr 2015 07:58:48 -0700, Richard Yates

[snip]

Post by Tony Cooper
"long-uh". They seem to do it with short-sounding words only. It
wouldn't be hear with "expiring", but would be "going".

Where, exactly, have you heard people pronounce a [g] at the end of those
two -[N#] words?

In large areas of the North Midlands and North of England. I think
we're discussed this before.

When was Tony there?

Does anyone need to be in England to hear English accents?
Florida is a very popular holiday destination for people living in
the North Midlands and North of England.

It's a long way from "there are people" to "North Midlands and North of England" and Long Island, New York (where, however, the shwa is not appended,
which is what his original claim was). Are you vouching for the shwa, or only
for the velar stop after the nasal?

Tony Cooper

2015-04-11 18:16:17 UTC

Post by Tony Cooper
On Sat, 11 Apr 2015 07:58:48 -0700, Richard Yates

[snip]

Post by Tony Cooper
"long-uh". They seem to do it with short-sounding words only. It
wouldn't be hear with "expiring", but would be "going".

Where, exactly, have you heard people pronounce a [g] at the end of those
two -[N#] words?

In large areas of the North Midlands and North of England. I think
we're discussed this before.

And in Indianapolis, Indiana and St Petersburg, Florida. My
grandmother was an uh-adder. While she isn't the only one that I've
heard it from, it was her uhs that made me notice it.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando FL

David Kleinecke

2015-04-13 00:11:25 UTC

Post by Tony Cooper
On Sat, 11 Apr 2015 07:58:48 -0700, Richard Yates

Post by Richard Yates
On Sat, 11 Apr 2015 13:44:40 +0100, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"

Post by Ramapriya D
I've heard an equal number of people pronouncing 'longevity' with a soft
and hard G. You?

Soft G for me.

Interesting. Just today, an Englishman office colleague pronounced the word with a hard G, i.e. 'long' as in, well, 'long' :)

There is no hard G in "long". For that matter, there is no soft G in
"long". Instead it has "ng" ([N] in ASCII IPA), which is a totally
different consonant.

There is in some accents in England.

And the US. Notably that of many inhabitants of Long Island, aha
"Long-Gisland."

"long-uh". They seem to do it with short-sounding words only. It
wouldn't be hear with "expiring", but would be "going".
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando FL

Do you mean a glottal stop?

Jerry Friedman

2015-04-11 17:31:57 UTC

Post by Richard Yates
On Sat, 11 Apr 2015 13:44:40 +0100, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"

Post by Ramapriya D
I've heard an equal number of people pronouncing 'longevity' with a soft
and hard G. You?

Soft G for me.

Interesting. Just today, an Englishman office colleague pronounced the word with a hard G, i.e. 'long' as in, well, 'long' :)

There is no hard G in "long". For that matter, there is no soft G in
"long". Instead it has "ng" ([N] in ASCII IPA), which is a totally
different consonant.

There is in some accents in England.

And the US. Notably that of many inhabitants of Long Island, aha
"Long-Gisland."

Also Pittsburgh, at least for some older people. (I haven't been there
for decades. Rich Ulrich might comment.)

--
Jerry Friedman

Rich Ulrich

2015-04-11 20:28:40 UTC

On Sat, 11 Apr 2015 11:31:57 -0600, Jerry Friedman

Post by Richard Yates
On Sat, 11 Apr 2015 13:44:40 +0100, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"

Post by Ramapriya D
I've heard an equal number of people pronouncing 'longevity' with a soft
and hard G. You?

Soft G for me.

Interesting. Just today, an Englishman office colleague pronounced the word with a hard G, i.e. 'long' as in, well, 'long' :)

There is no hard G in "long". For that matter, there is no soft G in
"long". Instead it has "ng" ([N] in ASCII IPA), which is a totally
different consonant.

There is in some accents in England.

And the US. Notably that of many inhabitants of Long Island, aha
"Long-Gisland."

Also Pittsburgh, at least for some older people. (I haven't been there
for decades. Rich Ulrich might comment.)

Yes, I have heard Long-Gisland in Pittsburgh, but
I can't speak about today's younger Pittsburghers.

These days, I hear native Pittsburghers mainly on
news broadcasts, and Long Island is rarely in our news.

Years ago, I tuned out my local accent-awareness; but
I think that I will try to notice those details for a while.
I imagine that there is less than there used to be.

--
Rich Ulrich

Bob Martin

2015-04-12 06:31:09 UTC

Post by Ramapriya D
I've heard an equal number of people pronouncing 'longevity' with a soft
and hard G. You?

Soft G for me.

Interesting. Just today, an Englishman office colleague pronounced the word with a hard G, i.e. '

long' as in, well, 'long' :)

Post by Peter Moylan
There is no hard G in "long". For that matter, there is no soft G in
"long". Instead it has "ng" ([N] in ASCII IPA), which is a totally
different consonant.

There is in some accents in England.

Also "thing" - pronounced as thingg or even think (and even commoner is somethink).

Richard Tobin

2015-04-11 14:01:44 UTC

Post by Peter Moylan
There is no hard G in "long".

There was in the English of my first school teacher. This was in the
English midlands.

-- Richard

Stefan Ram

2015-04-11 14:25:16 UTC

Post by Peter Moylan
There is no hard G in "long".

There was in the English of my first school teacher. This was in the
English midlands.

A typical pronunciation mistake of Germans reportedly is
/'INlIS/ instead /'INglIS/ for »English«. If that is true,
than it would be funny that Germans are taught years of
English at school, but aren't taught the proper pronunciation
of even the name of the language they learn!

Canepari gives [Y] for the /I/ above: '[Y]Ngl[Y]S.

This was written with my personal ASCII transliteration of
his symbols used for the [Y].

[Y] is a sound midway between the schwa and [i], that is,
more close /and/ centered than [i], while [I] would only be
more close. [I] is used in German words like »Mitte«.

The unrounded vocoids
back back front front
central central central
.--------.--------.--------.--------.--------.
| | | | | |
| [u] | [v] | [:] | [y] | [i] | fully close
| | | | | |
|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|
| | | | | |
| [U] | [V] | [2] | [Y] | [I] | near-close
| | | | | |
|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|
| | | | | |
| [o] | [<] | [@] | [>] | [e] | close-mid
| | | | | |
|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|
| | | | | |
| [Q] | [6] | [5] | [8] | [E] | open-mid
| | | | | |
|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|
| | | | | |
| [O] | [^] | [4] | [%] | [3] | near-open
| | | | | |
|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|
| | | | | |
| [#] | [q] | [a] | [A] | [$] | fully open
| | | | | |
'--------'--------'--------'--------'--------'

Oliver Cromm

2015-04-14 16:47:29 UTC

Post by Peter Moylan
There is no hard G in "long".

There was in the English of my first school teacher. This was in the
English midlands.

While the pronunciation with a [g] is more common, both are
possible, according to Merriam-Webster.

--
"Bother", said the Borg, as they assimilated Pooh.

Robert Bannister

2015-04-14 23:26:27 UTC

Post by Peter Moylan
There is no hard G in "long".

There was in the English of my first school teacher. This was in the
English midlands.

While the pronunciation with a [g] is more common, both are
possible, according to Merriam-Webster.

Interesting. I have never heard a native speaking say it without the G
so one wonders where M-W's information came from.

--
Robert Bannister - 1940-71 SE England
1972-now W Australia

Robert Bannister

2015-04-14 23:27:17 UTC

Post by Peter Moylan
There is no hard G in "long".

There was in the English of my first school teacher. This was in the
English midlands.

While the pronunciation with a [g] is more common, both are
possible, according to Merriam-Webster.

Interesting. I have never heard a native speaking

********
speaker

say it without the G

Post by Robert Bannister
so one wonders where M-W's information came from.

--
Robert Bannister - 1940-71 SE England
1972-now W Australia

Stefan Ram

2015-04-14 23:45:59 UTC

Post by Robert Bannister
Interesting. I have never heard a native speaking say it without the G
so one wonders where M-W's information came from.

In England, only /'INglIS/ is correct, while in America
also /'INlIS/ is possible.

The English that the German pupils learn in the usual
public schools is supposed to be British English, so
they should learn to say /'InglIS/.

And the Germans often say /lVndn/ instead of /***@n/.

Both German and English rules allow the elision of the Schwa
within an /@n/ ending. But /only the English rules/ have an
exception, that forbids the elision in the case #@N, where #
is CC, N or [l] (where C is a consonant and N is a nasal).

Thus, the following Schwas cannot be omitted, but are often
omitted by German speakers: German ['dZE:***@n], London
['***@n], Lisbon ['***@n], talent ['tæ:***@nt].

In German, the German word »landen« indeed can correctly
be pronounced either ['***@n] or ['landn].

Peter T. Daniels

2015-04-15 03:15:15 UTC

Post by Robert Bannister
Interesting. I have never heard a native speaking say it without the G
so one wonders where M-W's information came from.

In England, only /'INglIS/ is correct, while in America
also /'INlIS/ is possible.

Where? What leads you to say that?

Post by Stefan Ram
The English that the German pupils learn in the usual
public schools is supposed to be British English, so
they should learn to say /'InglIS/.
Both German and English rules allow the elision of the Schwa
is CC, N or [l] (where C is a consonant and N is a nasal).

I don't know what you're talking about. That's not true of AmE, and ISTM
that BrE elides even more unstressed vowels than we do.

Post by Stefan Ram
Thus, the following Schwas cannot be omitted, but are often
In German, the German word »landen« indeed can correctly

Stefan Ram

2015-04-15 03:43:15 UTC

Post by Stefan Ram
Thus, the following Schwas cannot be omitted, but are often

Two other words where German's like to elide a Schwa-like
sound compared to British English are:

Rock'n'Roll [,***@n'***@Ul] (British English pronunciation)
chicken ['tSIkIn] (British English pronunciation)

In Germany, one might hear /'rOkn'ro:l/ and /'tSIkn/.

Im American English, the Schwa in ['***@n'roUl] is weaker
than in British English, but it's still there, and chicken
becomes ['***@n] with a Schwa in place of an [I].

(The two [A] above are actually two different sounds, but
there are only so many A symbols in ASCII. The British [A]
is rounded.)

In fact, I myself made or make the error to pronounce »question«
as ['kwEstSn] and then I wondered why it's so difficult to
pronounce (the consonant cluster [stSn]) and still sounded odd!
But I should say ['***@n]. But there still is the
consonant cluster [stS] in it, and I am afraid that I do
yet have found the best way to pronounce this, because I am
not sure whether my pronunciation of this word is correct.

Peter T. Daniels

2015-04-15 12:10:44 UTC

Post by Stefan Ram
Thus, the following Schwas cannot be omitted, but are often

Two other words where German's like to elide a Schwa-like
chicken ['tSIkIn] (British English pronunciation)
In Germany, one might hear /'rOkn'ro:l/ and /'tSIkn/.

You invalidate your point by using [phonetic] transcription for BrE and
/phonemic/ transcription for the German variety.

I wonder what exactly it is you claim is different between [@n] and
syllabic [n|] (n with a vertical stroke beneath).

Post by Stefan Ram
than in British English, but it's still there, and chicken

That's the opposite of what you claimed yesterday.

Post by Stefan Ram
(The two [A] above are actually two different sounds, but
there are only so many A symbols in ASCII. The British [A]
is rounded.)

And there is a symbol for the difference in Kirshenbaum ASCII IPA.

Post by Stefan Ram
In fact, I myself made or make the error to pronounce »question«
as ['kwEstSn] and then I wondered why it's so difficult to
pronounce (the consonant cluster [stSn]) and still sounded odd!
consonant cluster [stS] in it, and I am afraid that I do
yet have found the best way to pronounce this, because I am
not sure whether my pronunciation of this word is correct.

In English, the affricate [c] is not a sequence of [t] and [S]. The
syllabification is ['kwEs.cn].

The late Egyptologist Klaus Baer, born in Switzerland, had no trace of a
German accent in his English -- except that he always pronounced "Egyptian"
as "egypt-shn" with a distinct [t], instead of the normal [i'jIp.Sn].

Oliver Cromm

2015-04-15 17:23:28 UTC

Post by Stefan Ram
Two other words where German's like to elide a Schwa-like
chicken ['tSIkIn] (British English pronunciation)
In Germany, one might hear /'rOkn'ro:l/ and /'tSIkn/.
than in British English, but it's still there, and chicken

I'm afraid each of your examples needs to be discussed separately.

The German sequence [***@n] at the end of a word, when reduced,
comes out as (close to) [kN] in my speech. I would consider it a
clear German accent if I said [rAkNroUl] or [tSikN]. However, when
I just reduce the schwa, but take care to leave the [n] a clear
[n], I believe the [kn] comes out similar to mooncow's (UK
speaker!) pronunciation at
<http://de.forvo.com/word/rock_and_roll/#en> or that of JessicaMS
at <http://de.forvo.com/word/chicken/#en>.

--
If Helen Keller is alone in the forest and falls down, does she
make a sound?

Peter T. Daniels

2015-04-15 21:11:36 UTC

I'm afraid each of your examples needs to be discussed separately.
comes out as (close to) [kN] in my speech. I would consider it a
clear German accent if I said [rAkNroUl] or [tSikN].

That might come across as a hypercorrection -- as if you'd been told so
often "not to drop the g" in e.g. "Singin' in the rain" that whenever
you encountered a final n you were trying to "give it a g."

Post by Oliver Cromm
However, when
I just reduce the schwa, but take care to leave the [n] a clear
[n], I believe the [kn] comes out similar to mooncow's (UK
speaker!) pronunciation at
<http://de.forvo.com/word/rock_and_roll/#en> or that of JessicaMS
at <http://de.forvo.com/word/chicken/#en>.

That should be entirely normal. It would be strange, no, to so perfectly
time the voice onset and the velic opening that a bit of non-nasalized vowel
could creep in between the k-closure and the n-opening.

Oliver Cromm

2015-04-15 17:23:30 UTC

Post by Robert Bannister
Interesting. I have never heard a native speaking say it without the G
so one wonders where M-W's information came from.

Having the general student population learn one consistent native
accent is a very high goal. If their pronunciation has no obvious
foreign accent, that would already be a high achievement, one
which most people cannot reach. A realistic goal, in my opinion,
is to get rid of pronunciations that make the English hard to
understand or easy to misunderstand.

I was lucky that I had an almost-native speaker for an English
teacher in school for a few months, at least. Unfortunately, this
is rare. Even my teacher did not have the qualifications to teach
in a German school, so a special arrangement had to be made.

She had been living in the US for a long time, since her teenage
years, IIRC. Obviously, she had an American accent. Getting mixed
up between British and American was a small price to pay, in my
opinion, for the plus side of getting to hear spontaneous
idiomatic English, something that non-native teachers can't always
deliver.
That might happen to me, too.

Post by Stefan Ram
Both German and English rules allow the elision of the Schwa
is CC, N or [l] (where C is a consonant and N is a nasal).
Thus, the following Schwas cannot be omitted, but are often

I find it technically difficult to say [mn]. When schwa-elision
takes place, in my speech, m and n fuse: kommen [***@n] -> [kom].
The tongue still makes a movement toward the [n] position, but
since I don't open my mouth, I believe it can't be heard as such.
I will not do this when speaking English.

For "Lisbon" and "talent", I will probably not elide the schwa,
because I'm guided by native speakers' pronunciation with a clear
second syllable that I remember, but I'm not aware of a rule like
the one you postulate. Do you have a source, or did you come up
with it yourself?

--
The Eskimoes had fifty-two names for snow because it was
important to them, there ought to be as many for love.
-- Margaret Atwood, Surfacing (novel), p.106

Robert Bannister

2015-04-16 00:13:12 UTC

Post by Robert Bannister
Interesting. I have never heard a native speaking say it without the G
so one wonders where M-W's information came from.

I'm sure many of the inhabitants say /lVn?n/ (is ? right for an ASCII
IPA glottal stop?) - I doubt I'd notice the missing schwa, but I would
very much notice a missing G.

--
Robert Bannister - 1940-71 SE England
1972-now W Australia

Oliver Cromm

2015-04-15 17:23:30 UTC

Post by Peter Moylan
There is no hard G in "long".

There was in the English of my first school teacher. This was in the
English midlands.

While the pronunciation with a [g] is more common, both are
possible, according to Merriam-Webster.

Interesting. I have never heard a native [speaker] say it without the G
so one wonders where M-W's information came from.

Well, shouldn't it come from examples of (AmE) speakers?

At <http://de.forvo.com/word/english/#en>, I cannot detect a [g]
in the pronunciations of Matt3799 and sugardaddy. A few others
have very weak [g], where I have to listen twice to be sure
whether it's there or not. Most of the British speakers indeed
have a strong [g]. In the example from englishdoyoueven (from New
Zealand), the [N] and the [g] appear fused into one, slightly
alien (to me) consonant.

--
... man muss oft schon Wissenschaft infrage stellen bei den Wirt-
schaftsmenschen [...] das Denken wird hÃ¤ufig blockiert von einem
ideologischen Ãœberbau [...] Es ist halt in vielen Teilen eher
eine Religion als eine Wissenschaft. -- Heiner Flassbeck

Robert Bannister

2015-04-16 00:20:09 UTC

Post by Peter Moylan
There is no hard G in "long".

There was in the English of my first school teacher. This was in the
English midlands.

While the pronunciation with a [g] is more common, both are
possible, according to Merriam-Webster.

Interesting. I have never heard a native [speaker] say it without the G
so one wonders where M-W's information came from.

Well, shouldn't it come from examples of (AmE) speakers?
At <http://de.forvo.com/word/english/#en>, I cannot detect a [g]
in the pronunciations of Matt3799 and sugardaddy. A few others
have very weak [g], where I have to listen twice to be sure
whether it's there or not. Most of the British speakers indeed
have a strong [g]. In the example from englishdoyoueven (from New
Zealand), the [N] and the [g] appear fused into one, slightly
alien (to me) consonant.

I hear a clear G from sugardaddy. Matt3799 seems to be using a sort of
strangled velar stop, similar to but not the same as glottal stop.

--
Robert Bannister - 1940-71 SE England
1972-now W Australia

Oliver Cromm

2015-04-16 17:47:04 UTC

Post by Stefan Ram
A typical pronunciation mistake of Germans reportedly is
/'INlIS/ instead /'INglIS/ for »English«. [...]

While the pronunciation with a [g] is more common, both are
possible, according to Merriam-Webster.

Interesting. I have never heard a native [speaker] say it without the G
so one wonders where M-W's information came from.

Well, shouldn't it come from examples of (AmE) speakers?
At <http://de.forvo.com/word/english/#en>, I cannot detect a [g]
in the pronunciations of Matt3799 and sugardaddy. A few others
have very weak [g], where I have to listen twice to be sure
whether it's there or not. Most of the British speakers indeed
have a strong [g]. In the example from englishdoyoueven (from New
Zealand), the [N] and the [g] appear fused into one, slightly
alien (to me) consonant.

I hear a clear G from sugardaddy.

I tried again, I hear "maybe a hint of G, unless I'm imagining it"
after listening the fourth time. If that is a clear G to you, I'll
stop worrying about it, because I wouldn't know the difference.

--
The Eskimoes had fifty-two names for snow because it was
important to them, there ought to be as many for love.
-- Margaret Atwood, Surfacing (novel), p.106

Dr Nick

2015-05-02 09:16:28 UTC

Post by Ramapriya D
I've heard an equal number of people pronouncing 'longevity' with a soft
and hard G. You?

Soft G for me.

Interesting. Just today, an Englishman office colleague pronounced the
word with a hard G, i.e. 'long' as in, well, 'long' :)

I suspect (and looking at this thread it's a very strong suspicion) I'd
pronounce it with a hard 'g' but if someone mentioned it I'd remember
that it was wrong.

It's not a word I come across very often so the default spelling
pronunciation circuit beats the slow memory lookup with the response.

Iain Archer

2015-04-07 09:14:25 UTC

Post by Ramapriya D
I've heard an equal number of people pronouncing 'longevity' with a soft and hard G. You?

OED has "[like] dj as in judge (main stress)"

--
Iain Archer

Steve Hayes

2015-04-07 10:33:45 UTC