Unfinished Tales

In article <***@ID-187157.news.dfncis.de> in
rec.arts.books.tolkien, Tristan Miller

Post by Tristan Miller
I just purchased Unfinished Tales yesterday,
can I get some recommendations as to what are the more
enjoyable stories?

See Steuard's customized book list (part of the Tolkien FAQs
mentioned in my sig). It asks you various questions about what sort
of thing you like, then suggests what you'll probably most enjoy
reading.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Tolkien FAQs: http://Tolkien.slimy.com (Steuard Jensen's site)
Tolkien letters FAQ:
http://users.telerama.com/~taliesen/tolkien/lettersfaq.html
FAQ of the Rings: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm
Encyclopedia of Arda: http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm
more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/tech/faqget.htm

Steuard Jensen

2003-10-31 15:15:09 UTC

Post by Tristan Miller
I just purchased Unfinished Tales yesterday, and have read through
the introduction and the essay on the Istari. This seems to be just
my sort of book -- I prefer short stories and essays to novels.

UT is probably my favorite Tolkien book after LotR, so I'm glad you're
enjoying it! I generally _do_ prefer novels, but short stories and
essays are enjoyable too, and I see parts of UT as a glimpse of what
The Silmarillion might have been if Tolkien had completed it.

Post by Tristan Miller
I take it it's not necessary to read the chapters in the order
they're presented in the book.

Absolutely correct. I can't think of a single case offhand where one
chapter is necessary for another.

Post by Tristan Miller
If this is so, can I get some recommendations as to what are the
more enjoyable stories? (In case my background knowledge is
important, I've read only the Hobbit, the LoTR, and a few thousand
r.a.b.t. postings.)

Your background knowledge _is_ important, unfortunately: two of the
very best stories in UT are the First Age stories, and neither of
those would really make sense without having read _The Silmarillion_
first. (Although I'm currently updating my Book List, and if you were
willing to _try_ reading both of them without having read Silm. and
report back on how much sense they made, I'd very much appreciate it!)

In general, I'd say that all of the Third Age sections will be very
readable for you, as will the Numenor sections in the Second Age part
(more or less). And the essay on the Palantiri is accessible, too.
The Druedain essay is a bit more of a question, though if you just
ignore the references to specific first age human groups you'll
probably enjoy it.

I would second Stan's suggestion to try my Custom Tolkien Book List,
which will give at least a vague idea of how much you're likely to
enjoy each section... BUT, I'm about 90% finished with an update of
the list, so I'd respectfully suggest that you wait to look until
Sunday, when I think it will do a better job for a case like yours. :)
You can find the list at

http://tolkien.slimy.com/books.html

Enjoy!
Steuard Jensen

2003-10-31 16:01:04 UTC

On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 10:08:07 +0100,

Post by Tristan Miller
Greetings.
I just purchased Unfinished Tales yesterday, and have read through the
introduction and the essay on the Istari. This seems to be just my sort of
book -- I prefer short stories and essays to novels. I take it it's not
necessary to read the chapters in the order they're presented in the book.
If this is so, can I get some recommendations as to what are the more
enjoyable stories? (In case my background knowledge is important, I've
read only the Hobbit, the LoTR, and a few thousand r.a.b.t. postings.)

Whatever else you choose to read or not read, the unfinished Tuor tale is a
must. In my humble (ya right!) opinion, it is among the best prose Tolkien
ever wrote.

--
Aaron Clausen

***@alberni.net

Thomas Sperre

2003-10-31 20:55:03 UTC

Post by AC
Whatever else you choose to read or not read, the unfinished Tuor tale is a
must. In my humble (ya right!) opinion, it is among the best prose Tolkien
ever wrote.
--
Aaron Clausen

And while I am not disagreeing that the tale of Tuor is a good one, I find
the story of the children of Hurin is even better. Enjoy!

mvh
Thomas Sperre

Graham Lockwood

2003-10-31 21:17:07 UTC

Post by AC
Whatever else you choose to read or not read, the unfinished Tuor tale is

Post by AC
must. In my humble (ya right!) opinion, it is among the best prose

Tolkien

Post by AC
ever wrote.

And while I am not disagreeing that the tale of Tuor is a good one, I find
the story of the children of Hurin is even better. Enjoy!

That whole family was prime writing material...

||// // "The narrative ends here. || //
|// // There is no reason to think ||//
(/ // that any more was ever written. |//
||// The manuscript, which becomes //
|// increasingly rapid towards the end, //|
(/ peters out in a scrawl." //||
|| -Christopher Tolkien, _The Lost Road_ // ||

Steuard Jensen

2003-11-01 23:00:48 UTC

Quoth "Thomas Sperre" <***@online.no> in article
<K_zob.35567$***@news2.e.nsc.no>:
[AC wrote:]

Post by Thomas Sperre

...the unfinished Tuor tale is a must. In my humble (ya right!)
opinion, it is among the best prose Tolkien ever wrote.

And while I am not disagreeing that the tale of Tuor is a good one,
I find the story of the children of Hurin is even better. Enjoy!

Both are fantastic and among Tolkien's best, I agree completely. But
keep in mind that the original poster has not yet read _The
Silmarillion_! Without that background, I don't know that either of
these excellent stories would make sense or be as meaningful.

Steuard Jensen

the softrat

2003-11-01 00:58:06 UTC

On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 10:08:07 +0100, in rec.arts.books.tolkien Tristan

Post by Tristan Miller
Greetings.
I just purchased Unfinished Tales yesterday, and have read through the
introduction and the essay on the Istari.

<snip>

Post by Tristan Miller
(In case my background knowledge is important, I've
read only the Hobbit, the LoTR, and a few thousand r.a.b.t. postings.)

Then skip all the first age stuff and at least half of the second age
stuff. It won't make much sense and is certainly not a coherent story.
You really should read _The Silmarillion_ even though there may be
sections you find distasteful or hard going (like the Ainulindale).
Just remember that _The Silmarillion_ is all JRR Tolkien except for
the chapter on The Fall of Doriath which is only about 50% or 60%
JRRT.

the softrat
Curmudgeon-at-Large
mailto:***@pobox.com
--
I don't see what all the fuss is about, if those dolphins were
so smart, they wouldn't hang out with tuna.

Pippen

2003-11-01 02:09:02 UTC

IMO Of_Turin_Turambar in UT is better than in the Silmarillion... More
detail... If you like UT you should really read the Silmarillion. Some
people get hung up on the first few chapters but having recently read the
Silmarillion for a second time (after LotR, TH and UT) the first part is
brilliant and gives so much more meaning to the rest of the books...

I'm debating starting HOME but I'm not sure how it differs from the story
line in LotR... I have read S. Jensen's thoughts on it at his FAQ website.
Just not sure if I can cope with a hobbit named Trotter instead of
Strider... If I"m off on this please correct me. If anybody else knows of a
verbose description of HOME and how it differs from the Silmarillion, UT,
TH, LotR please enlighten me...

-p

Pippen

2003-11-01 02:16:05 UTC

Post by Pippen

Post by Tristan Miller
Greetings.
I just purchased Unfinished Tales yesterday, and have read through the
introduction and the essay on the Istari. This seems to be just my sort

Post by Tristan Miller
book -- I prefer short stories and essays to novels. I take it it's not
necessary to read the chapters in the order they're presented in the book.
If this is so, can I get some recommendations as to what are the more
enjoyable stories? (In case my background knowledge is important, I've
read only the Hobbit, the LoTR, and a few thousand r.a.b.t. postings.)
Regards,
Tristan
--
_
_V.-o Tristan Miller [en,(fr,de,ia)] >< Space is limited
/ |`-' -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= <> In a haiku, so it's hard
(7_\\ http://www.nothingisreal.com/ >< To finish what you

IMO Of_Turin_Turambar in UT is better than in the Silmarillion... More
detail... If you like UT you should really read the Silmarillion. Some
people get hung up on the first few chapters but having recently read the
Silmarillion for a second time (after LotR, TH and UT) the first part is
brilliant and gives so much more meaning to the rest of the books...
I'm debating starting HOME but I'm not sure how it differs from the story
line in LotR... I have read S. Jensen's thoughts on it at his FAQ website.
Just not sure if I can cope with a hobbit named Trotter instead of
Strider... If I"m off on this please correct me. If anybody else knows of a
verbose description of HOME and how it differs from the Silmarillion, UT,
TH, LotR please enlighten me...
-p

OK, let me correct myself, the story of Turin IMO is better in UT than in
the Silmarillion...

-p

Jetro de Château

2003-11-01 22:44:50 UTC

Post by Pippen
I'm debating starting HOME but I'm not sure how it differs from the
story line in LotR... I have read S. Jensen's thoughts on it at his
FAQ website. Just not sure if I can cope with a hobbit named Trotter
instead of Strider... If I"m off on this please correct me. If
anybody else knows of a verbose description of HOME and how it
differs from the Silmarillion, UT, TH, LotR please enlighten me...

I find there are some thoroughly enjoyable parts to HOME (at least those
few books I've had the pleasure to read) but all the foornotes and first
and second versions of the same story can be a bit tiresome if all you
wanted was a little light reading. There have been times when I felt S
was to LOTR as HOME is to S (as far as readability is concerned) but I
think that might be too harsh a judgement.

Jetro

Paul S. Person

2003-11-09 17:57:04 UTC

Post by Jetro de ChÃ¢teau

On those occasions when a little light reading is what you want, just
about anything would be more appropriate than HOME. It is presented in
the style of a scholarly work, which never enhances readability
(although it does, for HOME, enhance its value).

--
You are not being ignored! With rare exceptions:
I download on Saturdays. I upload on Sundays. Patience is a virtue

s***@nomail.com

2003-11-01 23:03:46 UTC

Pippen <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
: I'm debating starting HOME but I'm not sure how it differs from the story
: line in LotR... I have read S. Jensen's thoughts on it at his FAQ website.
: Just not sure if I can cope with a hobbit named Trotter instead of
: Strider... If I"m off on this please correct me. If anybody else knows of a
: verbose description of HOME and how it differs from the Silmarillion, UT,
: TH, LotR please enlighten me...

You are off if you think that HOME is a story. HOME is the
history of the writing of the Silmarillion and the Lord of the Rings.
It contains early versions, drafts, notes, etc. In many cases,
it contains several versions of the same story. It also contains
a lot of commentary by Christopher Tolkien. The commentary
often just describes the nature of the manuscripts, the time they
were written, and other more or less factual aspects, but occassionally
makes guesses as to what his father's intentions really were.

If the idea of Trotter upsets you, you should realize that
there is no finished story containing Trotter the hobbit. He
is a character who appears in the first versions of book one,
and plays the same role as Strider, and many of the same things
happen. There is an attack at Weathertop, and two of the hobbits
throw themselves on the ground in terror, and a third stood
by the Ringbearer, and the Ringbearer put on the Ring and
threw himself forward crying Elbereth, and Trotter appears
with torches. The names of the hobbits are Odo, Frodo, Merry
and Bingo, but Frodo is not the Ringbearer, and The Ring is
just a Ring.

What happens to Trotter? Nothing. Tolkien just changed his
mind before the company ever made it through Moria.

If you are just looking for a story to read, HOME is not
what you are looking for. If you are looking for a very
interesting record of the creative process in action, HOME
is quite fascinating.

Stephen

coyotes morgan mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges

2003-11-02 00:17:08 UTC

Post by s***@nomail.com
You are off if you think that HOME is a story. HOME is the
history of the writing of the Silmarillion and the Lord of the Rings.
It contains early versions, drafts, notes, etc. In many cases,

however like snorris edda is contains embedded many stories
not seen elsewhere

Steuard Jensen

2003-11-01 23:13:15 UTC

Hmm. I may have misled you, so I'll try to clarify.

Be careful to distinguish between "The History of _The Lord of the
Rings_" and "The History of Middle-earth"! The former is a subset of
the latter (HoMe VI-VIII and the first third of IX, to be precise).
Other parts of HoMe are very different, from early versions of the
First Age stories (the Lost Tales) to final drafts and fascinating
essays (_Morgoth's Ring_, _The War of the Jewels_, etc).

I don't know what part of my site you've already looked at, but you
might want to take a look at my newly-revised Custom Tolkien Book
List. Not only does it include an overview of every book by Tolkien
about Middle-earth, but based on your preferences it will even suggest
a good order in which to read them (and even which parts of each one
you're likely to like and dislike). You can find it at

http://tolkien.slimy.com/books.html

If you have any advice on how to rephrase parts of my site to answer
your question better, please share! :)

Steuard Jensen

The American

2003-11-03 06:12:04 UTC

Post by Pippen
I'm debating starting HOME but I'm not sure how it differs from the story
line in LotR... I have read S. Jensen's thoughts on it at his FAQ website.
Just not sure if I can cope with a hobbit named Trotter instead of
Strider... If I"m off on this please correct me. If anybody else knows of a
verbose description of HOME and how it differs from the Silmarillion, UT,
TH, LotR please enlighten me...

It's pretty brutal if you like and love the names as they are in the
finished product.
Reading Melkor as Melko just drove me nuts!!! (for one example).
Home is interesting.
Several books I found totally horrible and unreadable initially were quite
enjoyable several years later.
Lost Tales 1+2 is very raw but at the same time it's very rich in ideas.
I for the most part agree with the FAQ on the best order to read them.
fwiw.

T.A.

Stan Brown

2003-11-03 16:38:52 UTC

In article <Ukmpb.2365$***@news1.news.adelphia.net> in
rec.arts.books.tolkien, The American

Post by The American
Reading Melkor as Melko just drove me nuts!!! (for one example).

In an Oxford accent the pronunciation of the two would have been
very similar -- indistinguishable, to my American ears.

I remember taking third-semester Greek from an Englishman, who
pronounced all the -o verb endings as -or.

The American

2003-11-03 17:16:20 UTC

Post by Stan Brown
rec.arts.books.tolkien, The American

Post by The American
Reading Melkor as Melko just drove me nuts!!! (for one example).

In an Oxford accent the pronunciation of the two would have been
very similar -- indistinguishable, to my American ears.
I remember taking third-semester Greek from an Englishman, who
pronounced all the -o verb endings as -or.

Must have driven you crazy until you got used to it!
Language is fun when you see how it changes over time.
I just learned how the "h" used to be silent when it was the first letter in
a word.
Now herb is one of the few remaining common ones left, I think.
fwiw!

T.A.

David Broadbent

2003-11-03 18:24:55 UTC

Post by The American
Language is fun when you see how it changes over time.
I just learned how the "h" used to be silent when it was the first letter in
a word.
Now herb is one of the few remaining common ones left, I think.
fwiw!

"Standard" British English has many quirks - and most arise through
historical accident. Because of the proximity of the capital, the South East
English accents have heavily influenced what some call standard British
English. It is still typical to hear the 'h' dropped in Cockney for example.
But as far as I know, the 'h' has always been pronounced elsewhere in the
UK. I still refuse to use 'an' before 'historic' (which is the correct
grammar)
as a personal objection to this Thames-centric rule. If we step back further
the fact that the 'h' is usually silent in French probably is significant -
the
French language (as spoken by the Norman Conquerors) had a great impact
on ruling elites when English re-emerged in a more modern form in the
12th century (that London is closer to France than many UK provincial
cities is perhaps significant too). I would guess Tolkien himself favoured
the more northerly forms of English (and their quirks) to the Norman
English if the south.

At the risk wandering off topic further, the fact that we still put the 'g'
at the end of words such as 'going' is an influence of midlands (Mercian)
English - it is still actually pronounced in Birmingham today. This may even
be attributed to Shakespeare, one of the midland's more prominent influences
on the English language. I wouldn't be surprised if Tolkien (a midlander
himself - if we overlook his South African origins in favour of Birmingham
and Oxford) consciously attempted to champion the other forms of English
that are evident in the British Isles that may have been submerged by the
dominance of SE English. I seem to remember reading somewhere that he
lamented the damage done to Anglo-Saxon English (and the myths and culture
that invariably are transmuted through language) following the Norman
Conquest.

The American

2003-11-03 19:44:18 UTC

Post by David Broadbent

Post by The American
Language is fun when you see how it changes over time.
I just learned how the "h" used to be silent when it was the first

letter

Post by David Broadbent
in

Post by The American
a word.
Now herb is one of the few remaining common ones left, I think.
fwiw!

significant -

Post by David Broadbent
the
French language (as spoken by the Norman Conquerors) had a great impact
on ruling elites when English re-emerged in a more modern form in the
12th century (that London is closer to France than many UK provincial
cities is perhaps significant too). I would guess Tolkien himself favoured
the more northerly forms of English (and their quirks) to the Norman
English if the south.
At the risk wandering off topic further, the fact that we still put the 'g'
at the end of words such as 'going' is an influence of midlands (Mercian)
English - it is still actually pronounced in Birmingham today. This may even
be attributed to Shakespeare, one of the midland's more prominent influences
on the English language. I wouldn't be surprised if Tolkien (a midlander
himself - if we overlook his South African origins in favour of Birmingham
and Oxford) consciously attempted to champion the other forms of English
that are evident in the British Isles that may have been submerged by the
dominance of SE English. I seem to remember reading somewhere that he
lamented the damage done to Anglo-Saxon English (and the myths and culture
that invariably are transmuted through language) following the Norman
Conquest.

See, always interesting!
Thanks.

T.A.

John Jones

2003-11-03 19:40:45 UTC

Post by David Broadbent
"Standard" British English has many quirks - and most arise through
historical accident. Because of the proximity of the capital, the South East
English accents have heavily influenced what some call standard British
English. It is still typical to hear the 'h' dropped in Cockney for example.
But as far as I know, the 'h' has always been pronounced elsewhere in the
UK. I still refuse to use 'an' before 'historic' (which is the correct
grammar)
as a personal objection to this Thames-centric rule. If we step back further
the fact that the 'h' is usually silent in French probably is

significant -

I'm not sure if this is true; in Birmingham 'going' is pronounced 'gooin'.
Pronouncing the terminal 'g' is correct but it is usually omitted in most
regional accents.

David Broadbent

2003-11-03 18:28:42 UTC

"Standard" British English has many quirks - and most arise through
historical accident. Because of the proximity of the capital, the South East
English accents have heavily influenced what some call standard British
English. It is still typical to hear the 'h' dropped in Cockney for example.
But as far as I know, the 'h' has always been pronounced elsewhere in the
UK. I still refuse to use 'an' before 'historic' (which is the correct
grammar) as a personal objection to this Thames-centric rule. If we step
back further
the fact that the 'h' is usually silent in French probably is significant -
the
French language (as spoken by the Norman Conquerors) had a great impact
on ruling elites when English re-emerged in a more modern form in the
12th century (that London is closer to France than many UK provincial
cities is perhaps significant too). I would guess Tolkien himself favoured
the more northerly forms of English (and their quirks) to the Norman
English if the south.

At the risk wandering off topic further, the fact that we still put the 'g'
at the end of words such as 'going' is an influence of midlands (Mercian)
English - it is still actually pronounced in Birmingham today. This may even
be attributed to Shakespeare, one of the midland's more prominent influences
on the English language. I wouldn't be surprised if Tolkien (a midlander
himself - if we overlook his South African origins in favour of Birmingham
and Oxford) consciously attempted to champion the other forms of English
that are evident in the British Isles that may have been submerged by the
dominance of SE English. I seem to remember reading somewhere that he
lamented the damage done to Anglo-Saxon English (and the myths and culture
that invariably are transmuted through language) following the Norman
Conquest.

Stan Brown

2003-11-03 23:25:44 UTC

Post by David Broadbent
"Standard" British English has many quirks - and most arise through
historical accident.

We heard you the first time.

Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2003 18:28:42 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <bo66op$krh$***@hercules.btinternet.com>

Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2003 18:24:55 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <bo66hm$lt3$***@titan.btinternet.com>

What _is_ it with all these people and duplicate postings? I'm
seeing it all of a sudden in several newsgroups. Since there are
different Message-IDs it does seem most likely to be the posters and
not something that happens upstream.

Hellekin

2003-11-03 18:36:20 UTC

"Standard" British English has many quirks - and most arise through
historical accident. Because of the proximity of the capital, the South East
English accents have heavily influenced what some call standard British
English. It is still typical to hear the 'h' dropped in Cockney for example.
But as far as I know, the 'h' has always been pronounced elsewhere in the
UK. I still refuse to use 'an' before 'historic' (which is the correct
grammar) as a personal objection to this Thames-centric rule. If we step
back further
the fact that the 'h' is usually silent in French probably is significant -
the
French language (as spoken by the Norman Conquerors) had a great impact
on ruling elites when English re-emerged in a more modern form in the
12th century (that London is closer to France than many UK provincial
cities is perhaps significant too). I would guess Tolkien himself favoured
the more northerly forms of English (and their quirks) to the Norman
English of the south.

At the risk wandering off topic further, the fact that we still put the 'g'
at the end of words such as 'going' is an influence of midlands (Mercian)
English - it is still actually pronounced in Birmingham today. This may even
be attributed to Shakespeare, one of the midland's more prominent influences
on the English language. I wouldn't be surprised if Tolkien (a midlander
himself - if we overlook his South African origins in favour of Birmingham
and Oxford) consciously attempted to champion the other forms of English
that are evident in the British Isles that may have been submerged by the
dominance of SE English. I seem to remember reading somewhere that he
lamented the damage done to Anglo-Saxon English (and the myths and culture
that invariably are transmuted through language) following the Norman
Conquest.

Hellekin

2003-11-03 18:55:29 UTC

"Standard" British English has many quirks - and most arise through
historical accident. Because of the proximity of the capital, the South East
English accents have heavily influenced what some call standard British
English. It is still typical to hear the 'h' dropped in Cockney for example.
But as far as I know, the 'h' has always been pronounced elsewhere in the
UK. I still refuse to use 'an' before 'historic' (which is the correct
grammar) as a personal objection to this Thames-centric rule. If we step
back further
the fact that the 'h' is usually silent in French probably is significant -
the
French language (as spoken by the Norman Conquerors) had a great impact
on ruling elites when English re-emerged in a more modern form in the
12th century (that London is closer to France than many UK provincial
cities is perhaps significant too). I would guess Tolkien himself favoured
the more northerly forms of English (and their quirks) to the Norman
English of the south.

At the risk wandering off topic further, the fact that we still put the 'g'
at the end of words such as 'going' is an influence of midlands (Mercian)
English - it is still actually pronounced in Birmingham today. This may even
be attributed to Shakespeare, one of the midland's more prominent influences
on the English language. I wouldn't be surprised if Tolkien (a midlander
himself - if we overlook his South African origins in favour of Birmingham
and Oxford) consciously attempted to champion the other forms of English
that are evident in the British Isles that may have been submerged by the
dominance of SE English. I seem to remember reading somewhere that he
lamented the damage done to Anglo-Saxon English (and the myths and culture
that invariably are transmuted through language) following the Norman
Conquest.

A Tsar Is Born

2003-11-07 06:26:40 UTC

Post by The American
I just learned how the "h" used to be silent when it was the first letter in
a word.
Now herb is one of the few remaining common ones left, I think.
fwiw!

Honest?

coyotes morgan mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges

2003-11-07 06:52:58 UTC

Post by A Tsar Is Born

Post by The American
I just learned how the "h" used to be silent when it was the first letter

Post by The American
a word.
Now herb is one of the few remaining common ones left, I think.
fwiw!

Honest?

no

you have to distinguish germanic and french roots

A Tsar Is Born

2003-11-08 01:21:04 UTC

Post by coyotes morgan mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges

"coyotes morgan mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges"

Post by A Tsar Is Born

Post by The American
I just learned how the "h" used to be silent when it was the first letter

Post by The American
a word.
Now herb is one of the few remaining common ones left, I think.
fwiw!

Honest?

no
you have to distinguish germanic and french roots

"Herb," like "honest," has French roots.

But is that why one says "an historian" but "a house is not a home" ?

Tsar P

Yuk Tang

2003-11-08 02:08:41 UTC

Post by A Tsar Is Born
"Herb," like "honest," has French roots.
But is that why one says "an historian" but "a house is not a
home" ?

One doesn't say "an historian". One says "a historian". One says "an
hour". If a word begins with a vowel sound, one uses 'an' and 'th-ee'
(the). Otherwise, 'a' and 'th-er' (the).

--
Cheers, ymt, hating flu.
Email to: jim dot laker one at btopenworld dot com

Hellekin

2003-11-08 07:15:50 UTC

Post by A Tsar Is Born
"Herb," like "honest," has French roots.
But is that why one says "an historian" but "a house is not a home" ?

One doesn't say "an historian". One says "a historian". One says "an
hour". If a word begins with a vowel sound, one uses 'an' and 'th-ee'
(the). Otherwise, 'a' and 'th-er' (the).

No, actually Tsar is right. We're supposed to say "an history", "an
historic" and so on. We still are expected to pronounce the 'h' as well
though (whereas it's more or less silent in 'hour'). Not that I personally
agree with this grammatical rule. The sooner it dies out the better in my
opinion.

Yuk Tang

2003-11-08 07:46:27 UTC

Post by Hellekin

Post by A Tsar Is Born
"Herb," like "honest," has French roots.
But is that why one says "an historian" but "a house is not a home" ?

One doesn't say "an historian". One says "a historian". One
says "an hour". If a word begins with a vowel sound, one uses
'an' and 'th-ee' (the). Otherwise, 'a' and 'th-er' (the).

No, actually Tsar is right. We're supposed to say "an history",
"an historic" and so on.

Says who? Your English teacher? In which case, you should tell him or
her that it's _a_ historic occasion, not an.

Post by Hellekin
We still are expected to pronounce the
'h' as well though (whereas it's more or less silent in 'hour').
Not that I personally agree with this grammatical rule. The sooner
it dies out the better in my opinion.

It's not a grammatical rule. It's a grammatical mistake by those who
should know better; probably those who think that English deserves yet
another 'quaint' combo. There are no exceptions to the vowel rule,
AFAIK.

--
Cheers, ymt.
Email to: jim dot laker one at btopenworld dot com

Hellekin

2003-11-08 09:51:51 UTC

Post by A Tsar Is Born
"Herb," like "honest," has French roots.
But is that why one says "an historian" but "a house is not a home" ?

One doesn't say "an historian". One says "a historian". One
says "an hour". If a word begins with a vowel sound, one uses
'an' and 'th-ee' (the). Otherwise, 'a' and 'th-er' (the).

No, actually Tsar is right. We're supposed to say "an history",
"an historic" and so on.

Says who? Your English teacher? In which case, you should tell him or
her that it's _a_ historic occasion, not an.

Probably. And I probably did. :-)

There are a couple of exceptions to the vowel rule that I can think of - "a
uniform" and "a European" - because they are pronounced as a "y" sound.

Anyway the English I speak is an old form of Anglo-Saxon (one of the oldest)
being a Northumbrian - so *my* 'English' dialect is often pounced on by the
OED grammar lawyers (who you rightly say should know better).

Yuk Tang

2003-11-08 10:50:13 UTC

Post by Hellekin

Post by Yuk Tang
It's not a grammatical rule. It's a grammatical mistake by those
who should know better; probably those who think that English
deserves yet another 'quaint' combo. There are no exceptions to
the vowel rule, AFAIK.

There are a couple of exceptions to the vowel rule that I can
think of - "a uniform" and "a European" - because they are
pronounced as a "y" sound.

I can think of no exceptions. If a word begins with a vowel sound,
it's an, or the pronounced thee. If a word begins with a consonantal
sound, it's a, or the pronounced ther.

Post by Hellekin
Anyway the English I speak is an old form of Anglo-Saxon (one of
the oldest) being a Northumbrian - so *my* 'English' dialect is
often pounced on by the OED grammar lawyers (who you rightly say
should know better).

The English I speak is East Saxon.

--
Cheers, ymt.
Email to: jim dot laker one at btopenworld dot com

Hellekin

2003-11-08 13:00:24 UTC

Post by Yuk Tang
The English I speak is East Saxon.

Interesting. How would you personally characterise it?

There have been a few interviews with Melvyn Bragg recently on the radio /
TV - (plugging his new book on the English language) and amidst talking
about the various Anglo-Saxon dialects and what form they take today he's
mentioned Tolkien a couple of times. I got the impression he had a lot of
sympathy for Tolkien's efforts to re-invigorate English (well perhaps Eng.
Lit.) with some of it's older roots. It might be worth starting a new thread
to discuss? Was it Mercian Anglo-Saxon that Tolkien had a particular
interest in?

Yuk Tang

2003-11-08 15:50:10 UTC

Post by Hellekin

Post by Yuk Tang
The English I speak is East Saxon.

Interesting. How would you personally characterise it?

East Saxon = Essex. Like east London, but less harsh and more nasal.

--
Cheers, ymt.
Email to: jim dot laker one at btopenworld dot com

the softrat

2003-11-10 08:17:58 UTC

On Sat, 8 Nov 2003 13:00:24 +0000 (UTC), "Hellekin"

Was it Mercian Anglo-Saxon that Tolkien had a particular interest in?

Yes, specifically West Mercian.

the softrat
Curmudgeon-at-Large
mailto:***@pobox.com
--

Hellekin

2003-11-10 12:55:00 UTC

Post by the softrat
On Sat, 8 Nov 2003 13:00:24 +0000 (UTC), "Hellekin"

Was it Mercian Anglo-Saxon that Tolkien had a particular interest in?

Yes, specifically West Mercian.

And there is probably as much to say about Anglo-Saxon 'standards' as there
is about modern English 'standards'. Perhaps risking bringing this
discussion back to Tolkien - did he have a take on whether there was a
'standard' Anglo-Saxon?

the softrat

2003-11-11 08:49:38 UTC

On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 12:55:00 +0000 (UTC), "Hellekin"

Post by Hellekin
And there is probably as much to say about Anglo-Saxon 'standards' as there
is about modern English 'standards'. Perhaps risking bringing this
discussion back to Tolkien - did he have a take on whether there was a
'standard' Anglo-Saxon?

I don't know if Tolkien believed in a 'standard' Anglo-Saxon or not.
However if he did, he was out-of-step with virtually all of the
Anglo-Saxon experts of his time and now. I suspect that someone would
have commented on that. There is no 'standard' Anglo-Saxon. West Saxon
became dominant politically because the kings of the united
Anglo-Saxon England (807-1066) were all West-Saxons. However poetry
was all composed in a sort of 'poetic common speech' which had
elements from several dialects (and which varied over time like any
other language).

the softrat
Curmudgeon-at-Large
mailto:***@pobox.com
--

Matthew Bladen

2003-11-10 23:34:23 UTC

Post by the softrat
On Sat, 8 Nov 2003 13:00:24 +0000 (UTC), "Hellekin"

Was it Mercian Anglo-Saxon that Tolkien had a particular interest in?

Yes, specifically West Mercian.

You'll be able to give a more informed opinion on this one than I can,
but I get the impression from the names and occasional bits of Old
English used in LOTR that Tolkien used Mercian rather than West Saxon.
Saruman instead of Searoman, for instance; 'searo' being what my Old
English dictionary yields as the equivalent for 'saru'. Even taking
modernisations of spelling into account, the 'a' instead of 'ea' is IIRC
a feature of Mercian (something I seem to recollect Tom Shippey
mentioning in passing in _The Road to Middle-earth_), and it seems to me
to be entirely in character for Tolkien to have used Mercian given his
scholarly/personal attachment to it. There are some other divergences
from standard forms, for example in the bits of Old English spoken by
Eowyn and Eomer after Theoden's healing, but my feeble knowledge of Old
English can't tell me whether they represent actual differences in
pronunciation or just in spelling.
--
Matthew

John Jones

2003-11-10 19:53:45 UTC

Post by the softrat
On Sat, 8 Nov 2003 13:00:24 +0000 (UTC), "Hellekin"

Was it Mercian Anglo-Saxon that Tolkien had a particular interest in?

Yes, specifically West Mercian.

But what did he mean by that? There are two utterly different dialects used
in the West Midlands today: there is the rural dialect, which, as someone
pointed out a bit ago, is the root of modern Received Pronunciation; and
there is Brummie or Black Country which is supposed to be a pure version of
the original Anglo-Saxon.
Personally, I can't believe that Tolkien liked Brummie, though he must have
been exposed to it during his days in St. Philips School which is in
Ladywood, one of the less salubrious parts of Birmingham.
I come from this city myself though I don't speak with an accent (mostly,
anyway!).

the softrat

2003-11-13 06:29:54 UTC

On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 19:53:45 -0000, "John Jones"

Post by John Jones
and
there is Brummie or Black Country which is supposed to be a pure version of
the original Anglo-Saxon.

May be 'supposed to be' by some, but I will take any bet you offer
that it is not.

the softrat
Curmudgeon-at-Large
mailto:***@pobox.com
--

coyotes morgan mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges

2003-11-08 11:29:17 UTC

Post by Hellekin
There are a couple of exceptions to the vowel rule that I can think of - "a
uniform" and "a European" - because they are pronounced as a "y" sound.
Anyway the English I speak is an old form of Anglo-Saxon (one of the oldest)
being a Northumbrian - so *my* 'English' dialect is often pounced on by the
OED grammar lawyers (who you rightly say should know better).

the rule is quite simple

originally it was always -an- meaning -one-
since then before a consonantal phoneme it has been reduced to -a-
while before a voalic phoneme it remains close to the oe -an-

in old english and the words from that
-h- has represented a consonantal phoneme
a velar or glottal fricative

in french the -h- represents a nonsegmental phoneme
which prevents liaison (an aspirate h)
or it has no phonetic meaning (a mute h)
english doesnt have liaison
so french words with mute and aspirate h fell together
and in such words the h has no phonetic meaning

european -jùrópín- begins with a consonant
uniform -jûn^fórm- begins with a consonant
upside -^psajd- begins with a vowel
apple -apl- begins with a vowel
herb -rb- begins with a retroflex vowel
horse -hórs- begin with a consonant
history -hìstór- begins with a consonant

it was borrowed from the french histoire -ístwa- with a mute h
as long as the french mute h was preserved in pronounciation
it would take the -an- article rather than -a-

now that -h- has become a glottal fricative the only reason to use -an- not -a-
is linguistic inertia
or more likely academic hypercorrectness
showing off ones elated learning with no understanding of the actual linguistics

Hellekin

2003-11-08 12:03:09 UTC

"coyotes morgan mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges"

Post by coyotes morgan mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
now that -h- has become a glottal fricative the only reason to use -an- not -a-
is linguistic inertia
or more likely academic hypercorrectness
showing off ones elated learning with no understanding of the actual linguistics

Yep absolutely.

A Tsar Is Born

2003-11-12 01:46:01 UTC

"coyotes morgan mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges"

Post by coyotes morgan mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
the rule is quite simple

<snip>

You made all that up!

Tsar Parmathule

Jim Deutch

2003-11-12 16:52:17 UTC

Post by coyotes morgan mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges

Post by Hellekin
There are a couple of exceptions to the vowel rule that I can think of - "a
uniform" and "a European" - because they are pronounced as a "y" sound.

the rule is quite simple

Then why does it take you 28 more lines to explain it? <g>

Jim Deutch

--
"The memory goes second; I forget what's first."

Stan Brown

2003-11-08 15:57:34 UTC

Post by Hellekin
There are a couple of exceptions to the vowel rule that I can think of - "a
uniform" and "a European" - because they are pronounced as a "y" sound.

Those are not exceptions. The rule goes by sound and not by
spelling.

Stan Brown

2003-11-08 15:56:52 UTC

Post by Hellekin
We're supposed to say "an history", "an
historic" and so on. We still are expected to pronounce the 'h' as well
though (whereas it's more or less silent in 'hour'). Not that I personally
agree with this grammatical rule.

First, it's not a "grammatical rule" because pronunciation is
different from grammar.

Second, it's not a rule of what "we" are expected to say until you
define "we".

Whether leading h is pronounced has varied from one English-speaking
country to another, and from one class to another within a country,
and over time. You and Yuk and Yohalem are all wrong if you attempt
to state what is "right" or "wrong" because the answer depends on
who is speaking, and when.

Hellekin

2003-11-08 17:07:54 UTC

First, it's not a "grammatical rule" because pronunciation is
different from grammar.

Maybe. But in my (Chambers) dictionary it says:

"grammar, n. the science of language, from the points of view of
*pronunciation*, inflexion, syntax and historic development: the art of the
right use of language by grammatical rules."

Post by Stan Brown
Second, it's not a rule of what "we" are expected to say until you
define "we".
Whether leading h is pronounced has varied from one English-speaking
country to another, and from one class to another within a country,
and over time. You and Yuk and Yohalem are all wrong if you attempt
to state what is "right" or "wrong" because the answer depends on
who is speaking, and when.

I don't like the rule and don't adhere to it. Some BBC newscasters among
other happen to do so. And yes I accept that there are many variations of
English and many variations of it's grammatical rules. This rule happens to
be prevalent in British English as propagated by the British educational
systems (both public and private) that appear to have been concerned about
'standardising' the use of English in these islands. I accept my "we" is ill
defined and sloppy though and may not be relevant to (say) speakers of
American English.

Yuk Tang

2003-11-08 17:09:24 UTC

Post by Stan Brown
Whether leading h is pronounced has varied from one
English-speaking country to another, and from one class to another
within a country, and over time. You and Yuk and Yohalem are all
wrong if you attempt to state what is "right" or "wrong" because
the answer depends on who is speaking, and when.

You _do_ know that there is a standard for pronunciation? Cockney is
not it.

--
Cheers, ymt.
Email to: jim dot laker one at btopenworld dot com

Jerri

2003-11-08 17:51:59 UTC

Post by Yuk Tang
You _do_ know that there is a standard for
pronunciation? Cockney is not it.

It's probably standard for the folk who speak Cockney. Or would you have
those folk feel all inferior because their Mother Tongue is regarded with
fear and loathing by those who tend to regard dialects with ... um ... fear
and loathing?
Jerri [speaks standard un-accented Mid-West American, Mid-Missourian, Kansas
City *North* of the River, by way of South-East Iowa, English]

Yuk Tang

2003-11-08 18:03:06 UTC

Post by Yuk Tang
You _do_ know that there is a standard for
pronunciation? Cockney is not it.

Cockney speakers recognise that their dialect is not standard. Heck, I
grew up in an area which consisted largely of migrants from east
London, so I should know. One speaks cockney, one learns to speak
cockney, but one does not teach cockney.

Post by Jerri
Jerri [speaks standard un-accented Mid-West American,
Mid-Missourian, Kansas City *North* of the River, by way of
South-East Iowa, English]

--
Cheers, ymt.
Email to: jim dot laker one at btopenworld dot com

Jerri

2003-11-08 19:18:23 UTC

Post by Yuk Tang
Cockney speakers recognise that their dialect
is not standard. Heck, I grew up in an area
which consisted largely of migrants from east
London, so I should know. One speaks
cockney, one learns to speak
cockney, but one does not teach cockney.

Hmmmmmm ... okay, so maybe the speakers of the Cockney dialect have an
inferiority complex about *their* standard English. They prob'ly have rules
and regulations regarding dropping and insertion of certain sounds, and
those rules and regs *do* form a standard. It ain't the standard English of
Brooklyn NY or Houston TX ... but it has its own rhyme and reason, its own
*standard*, as it were ... so to speak ... And who on this earth was put
here to say that one standard is better or more standard than another
standard, given the number and variables of standards extant? When I was in
elementary school, a long long time ago in a galaxy just over the rainbow,
my teachers pretty much implied that Walter Cronkite spoke English the way
it was supposed to be spoken. When playing my brain over the speech of other
speakers with speech similar to that of Walter Cronkite, I can't help but
think of English as spoken by William Shatner in the role of Captain James
Tiberius Kirk of the Star Ship Enterprise ... and I can't help but think
that's no standard to which I wish to be held.
Cockney *might* be preferable, but I'd have to find someone to teach it to
me.
Jerri

Yuk Tang

2003-11-08 20:42:46 UTC

Just like any standards. But cockney is not the national, or
international standard.

Post by Jerri
And who on this earth was put here to
say that one standard is better or more standard than another
standard, given the number and variables of standards extant?

When one speaks standard English, or something pretty damn close, one
will be understood by anyone who speaks English, anywhere in the world.
Speak cockney and you'll be understood in London and its hinterlands,
but you'll be getting into forrin parts when you go to the Midlands or
anywhere furvah.

It's the same with Chinese. 'Putonghua' (literally 'standard speech')
is the dialect spoken in Beijing. Speak that, and you'll be understood
anywhere in China, save perhaps Hong Kong. Similarly, standard
Cantonese, which was what I was taught, is the Guangzhou
(Canton) dialect. It's understood anywhere within the Guangdong
province, and by most Chinese expats, unlike the numerous regional
versions.

Post by Jerri
When
I was in elementary school, a long long time ago in a galaxy just
over the rainbow, my teachers pretty much implied that Walter
Cronkite spoke English the way it was supposed to be spoken. When
playing my brain over the speech of other speakers with speech
similar to that of Walter Cronkite, I can't help but think of
English as spoken by William Shatner in the role of Captain James
Tiberius Kirk of the Star Ship Enterprise ... and I can't help but
think that's no standard to which I wish to be held.
Cockney *might* be preferable, but I'd have to find someone to
teach it to me.

Pygmalion/My Fair Lady contains some examples in an entertaining
setting. Get the original London cast CD of My Fair Lady and you'll
hear a genuine cockney (Stan Holloway) and an authentic-sounding
cockney (Julie Andrews). But not the Broadway version from a year
earlier, since Andrews' accent is appallingly inaccurate.

Lotsuv chocklet fer meh ter eht
Lotsuv cull maiking lotsuv 'eht
Warm faice, warm 'ends, warm feht
Ow woulden i' beh lahverleh

--
Cheers, ymt.
Email to: jim dot laker one at btopenworld dot com

Huan the hound

2003-11-09 11:22:49 UTC

Yuk Tang wrote:
[snip]

Post by Yuk Tang
It's the same with Chinese. 'Putonghua' (literally 'standard speech')
is the dialect spoken in Beijing.

Are you sure about this? My teacher, who happens to be a Chinese
university professor, says that neither Beijinghua nor Haerbinhua are
putonghua, though both places claim to have excellent Mandarin (I
wonder if they say the same in, say, Shenyang). She says that
although Beijinghua and Haerbinhua are both relatively close to
putonghua, the putonghua is a standard set by scholars, not an actual
dialect.

[snip]

--
Huan, the hound of the East

Yuk Tang

2003-11-09 16:51:54 UTC

Post by Huan the hound
[snip]

Post by Yuk Tang
It's the same with Chinese. 'Putonghua' (literally 'standard
speech') is the dialect spoken in Beijing.

Are you sure about this? My teacher, who happens to be a Chinese
university professor, says that neither Beijinghua nor Haerbinhua
are putonghua, though both places claim to have excellent Mandarin
(I wonder if they say the same in, say, Shenyang). She says that
although Beijinghua and Haerbinhua are both relatively close to
putonghua, the putonghua is a standard set by scholars, not an
actual dialect.

Fairy nuff; I got the info from my dad, who presumably got it from
elsewhere. But he definitely has practical experience of the various
forms of Cantonese, and I was taught to speak the standard form, while
listening to a more rural version at home.

It's a bit like the standard English dialect, I guess, which is
supposedly based on the Westminster strain, but which has been refined
by scholars. But that there is standardisation cannot be denied.

Talking about Shenyang; there's a fortified town of a similar name
which was said to have held out against the Mongols for 10 years before
falling. Without an Anglicised version of the name, I can't google for
more info. Any pointers?

--
Cheers, ymt.
Email to: jim dot laker one at btopenworld dot com

Huan the hound

2003-11-10 03:35:54 UTC

[snip]

Post by Huan the hound
Are you sure about this? My teacher, who happens to be a Chinese
university professor, says that neither Beijinghua nor Haerbinhua
are putonghua, though both places claim to have excellent Mandarin
(I wonder if they say the same in, say, Shenyang). She says that
although Beijinghua and Haerbinhua are both relatively close to
putonghua, the putonghua is a standard set by scholars, not an
actual dialect.

:-) Don't ask me anything about Cantonese; I'm in the northeast and
probably haven't even heard it except in pop music (yucky).

Post by Yuk Tang
It's a bit like the standard English dialect, I guess, which is
supposedly based on the Westminster strain, but which has been refined
by scholars. But that there is standardisation cannot be denied.

I'm staying out of the English argument. But AFAIK the putonghua is
not a spoken dialect. Sort of like an ideal.

Post by Yuk Tang
Talking about Shenyang; there's a fortified town of a similar name
which was said to have held out against the Mongols for 10 years before
falling. Without an Anglicised version of the name, I can't google for
more info. Any pointers?

I mentioned Shenyang as another example of a large northern city,
which might take enough pride in it's dialect to claim that it is
nearly putonghua. Although I haven't visited it, it is huge and it is
the provincial capital of Liaoning Province. It was the capital of
Manchuria before the Manchus moved into Beijing. I've never seen an
English name for Shenyang, so maybe there isn't one. Haerbin is
Harbin in English, which makes sense, but how can you improve on the
pinyin Shenyang?

--
Huan, the hound of Valinor

Yuk Tang

2003-11-10 09:55:51 UTC

Post by Huan the hound

Post by Yuk Tang
It's a bit like the standard English dialect, I guess, which is
supposedly based on the Westminster strain, but which has been
refined by scholars. But that there is standardisation cannot be
denied.

I'm staying out of the English argument. But AFAIK the putonghua
is not a spoken dialect. Sort of like an ideal.

Very few people speak with Received Pronunciation. But it's taught,
formally or otherwise, as an option, in case people from opposite ends
of the country can't make themselves understood with their native
tongues.

Post by Huan the hound

Post by Yuk Tang
Talking about Shenyang; there's a fortified town of a similar
name which was said to have held out against the Mongols for 10
years before falling. Without an Anglicised version of the name,
I can't google for more info. Any pointers?

That can't be it then. The one I'm thinking of is a small-ish
fortified town closer to central China than the north. In the eyes of
Chinese expats, at any rate, it was immortalised in the Condor Heroes
novels of Louis Cha.

Post by Huan the hound
I've
never seen an English name for Shenyang, so maybe there isn't one.
Haerbin is Harbin in English, which makes sense, but how can you
improve on the pinyin Shenyang?

In Cantonese, it's pronouced Sern-Yern. In a BBC documentary, the
western commentator pronounced it Shiang-Yang. The BBC took advantage
of a resurgent nationalism to make cheap use of the Mongolian army,
resulting in impressive shots of massed charges of several hundred
heavy cavalry. Rather different from the typical TVB 'battle'
consisting of a dozen soldiers on each side hurling fake rocks at each
other.

--
Cheers, ymt.
Email to: jim dot laker one at btopenworld dot com

Stan Brown

2003-11-09 03:09:01 UTC

You _do_ know that there is a standard for pronunciation? Cockney is
not it.

You reveal your ignorance. There is not one standard for
pronunciation, there are many. Regional dialects are not "wrong",
though some have less cachet than others (usually based on the
income level of people who speak them).

Yuk Tang

2003-11-09 16:46:03 UTC

Post by Stan Brown
Whether leading h is pronounced has varied from one
English-speaking country to another, and from one class to
another within a country, and over time. You and Yuk and Yohalem
are all wrong if you attempt to state what is "right" or "wrong"
because the answer depends on who is speaking, and when.

You _do_ know that there is a standard for pronunciation? Cockney
is not it.

You reveal your ignorance. There is not one standard for
pronunciation, there are many.

So I guess I must have been imagining things when I heard an east
Londoner and a Glaswegian talking, and they switched between their
natural accents and the standard one of which I speak.

Post by Stan Brown
Regional dialects are not "wrong",
though some have less cachet than others (usually based on the
income level of people who speak them).

Straw man. Regional dialects are not 'wrong' - they are not standard.
People learn to speak in their local accent, just as people learn
whatever they happen to learn, without restriction. However, people
are taught the standard dialect, just as people are taught a central
curriculum (the three Rs).

--
Cheers, ymt.
Email to: jim dot laker one at btopenworld dot com

W. Citoan

2003-11-09 18:07:45 UTC

You _do_ know that there is a standard for pronunciation? Cockney
is not it.

You reveal your ignorance. There is not one standard for
pronunciation, there are many.

So I guess I must have been imagining things when I heard an east
Londoner and a Glaswegian talking, and they switched between their
natural accents and the standard one of which I speak.

The United Kingdom's English is not the same as America's English.

Post by Stan Brown
Regional dialects are not "wrong", though some have less cachet than
others (usually based on the income level of people who speak them).

Straw man. Regional dialects are not 'wrong' - they are not
standard. People learn to speak in their local accent, just as
people learn whatever they happen to learn, without restriction.
However, people are taught the standard dialect, just as people are
taught a central curriculum (the three Rs).

Your "standard dialect" is itself a regional dialect.

A "central curriculum"? If you're simply stating everyone is taught (or
is supposed to be taught) reading, writing, and arithmetic, than that is
true. But that is hardly a "central curriculum." Curriculums vary more
widely (especially as grade levels increase) than dialects.

- W. Citoan

--
With YOU, I can be MYSELF ... We don't NEED Dan Rather ...

Yuk Tang

2003-11-09 18:21:16 UTC

Post by Stan Brown
You reveal your ignorance. There is not one standard for
pronunciation, there are many.

So I guess I must have been imagining things when I heard an
east Londoner and a Glaswegian talking, and they switched
between their natural accents and the standard one of which I
speak.

The United Kingdom's English is not the same as America's English.

But it's the one that's understood anywhere in the world where they
speak English. Hence 'standard'. Does anyone understand the meaning
of the word?

Post by Stan Brown
Regional dialects are not "wrong", though some have less cachet
than others (usually based on the income level of people who
speak them).

Straw man. Regional dialects are not 'wrong' - they are not
standard. People learn to speak in their local accent, just as
people learn whatever they happen to learn, without restriction.
However, people are taught the standard dialect, just as people
are taught a central curriculum (the three Rs).

Your "standard dialect" is itself a regional dialect.

How does that contradict what I've said?

Post by W. Citoan
A "central curriculum"? If you're simply stating everyone is
taught (or is supposed to be taught) reading, writing, and
arithmetic, than that is true. But that is hardly a "central
curriculum." Curriculums vary more widely (especially as grade
levels increase) than dialects.

But the core does not change; basic schooling teaches one to read and
write in one's language, and basic arithmetic. Anyone who'd ever been
to school is assumed to have achieved basic literacy and numeracy.

--
Cheers, ymt.
Email to: jim dot laker one at btopenworld dot com

s***@nomail.com

2003-11-09 18:32:11 UTC

Yuk Tang <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
: "W. Citoan" <***@NOSPAM-yahoo.com> wrote in
:> The United Kingdom's English is not the same as America's English.

: But it's the one that's understood anywhere in the world where they
: speak English. Hence 'standard'. Does anyone understand the meaning
: of the word?

Where in the English speaking world is America's English not understood?
Give me an example of how this 'standard' you are talking about is
understood everywhere.

Stephen

Yuk Tang

2003-11-09 20:49:51 UTC

Post by s***@nomail.com
:> The United Kingdom's English is not the same as America's
:> English.
: But it's the one that's understood anywhere in the world where
: they speak English. Hence 'standard'. Does anyone understand
: the meaning of the word?
Where in the English speaking world is America's English not
understood? Give me an example of how this 'standard' you are
talking about is understood everywhere.

Are certain American accents not understood throughout the US? What
happens when someone from that region speaks to another English-speaker
elsewhere? How do they arrive at a compromise that both can
understand? Would that not be a 'standard' for the two of them? And
how do we describe a 'standard' that was understood by even more
people?

Throughout the UK, there is an accepted standard accent/dialect that
everyone understands. From what I've been told, this also applies to
the lands of the former British Empire. My guess is that American
cultural imperialism may have achieved a similar effect, but this
'American standard' isn't typified by your current head of state (who
is famously incomprehensible). Perhaps you can point me to an example
of a clear American standard?

--
Cheers, ymt.
Email to: jim dot laker one at btopenworld dot com

s***@nomail.com

2003-11-09 21:27:11 UTC

Yuk Tang <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
: ***@nomail.com wrote in news:bom17b$1tcn$***@msunews.cl.msu.edu:
:> Yuk Tang <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
:>: "W. Citoan" <***@NOSPAM-yahoo.com> wrote in
:>:> The United Kingdom's English is not the same as America's
:>:> English.
:>
:>: But it's the one that's understood anywhere in the world where
:>: they speak English. Hence 'standard'. Does anyone understand
:>: the meaning of the word?
:>
:> Where in the English speaking world is America's English not
:> understood? Give me an example of how this 'standard' you are
:> talking about is understood everywhere.

: Are certain American accents not understood throughout the US? What
: happens when someone from that region speaks to another English-speaker
: elsewhere? How do they arrive at a compromise that both can
: understand? Would that not be a 'standard' for the two of them? And
: how do we describe a 'standard' that was understood by even more
: people?

In the U.S. we are quite tolerant of accents. Most people tend
not to compromise their accent, and people just learn to deal
with the differences. Their is usually enough context to
figure out what people mean. Sometimes there can still
be confusion. My mother was from Massachusetts, and had a very
decided New England accent, even though she lived the majority
of her life in the midwest. Despite the fact that I spoke
with her my whole life, I would occassionally misunderstand her,
particularly when their was little context. Crossword puzzles
often were the source of the problem: "What is a five letter
word for 'cod'". At least that is what I would hear. :)

: Throughout the UK, there is an accepted standard accent/dialect that
: everyone understands. From what I've been told, this also applies to
: the lands of the former British Empire. My guess is that American
: cultural imperialism may have achieved a similar effect, but this
: 'American standard' isn't typified by your current head of state (who
: is famously incomprehensible). Perhaps you can point me to an example
: of a clear American standard?

No. There is no clear American standard of which I am aware.
You are the one claiming the standard exists, who you should be
the one pointing it out.

Stephen

John Brock

2003-11-09 21:51:36 UTC

Post by s***@nomail.com
: Throughout the UK, there is an accepted standard accent/dialect that
: everyone understands. From what I've been told, this also applies to
: the lands of the former British Empire. My guess is that American
: cultural imperialism may have achieved a similar effect, but this
: 'American standard' isn't typified by your current head of state (who
: is famously incomprehensible). Perhaps you can point me to an example
: of a clear American standard?
No. There is no clear American standard of which I am aware.
You are the one claiming the standard exists, who you should be
the one pointing it out.

I read years ago that there was a such thing as "network standard"
English; a sort of neutral center-of-gravity mid-western accent
which was supposedly the accent used by nationally broadcast news
anchors in the US. The intent was to be understandable by everybody
and to avoid ruffling any feathers by using distinctive regional
accents. I think that, to most Americans, speakers of this dialect
come across as having no accent at all, and this is probably the
closest you are going to come to a clear American standard.

--
John Brock
***@panix.com

Jerri

2003-11-09 21:42:44 UTC

Post by Yuk Tang
Are certain American accents not understood
throughout the US?

I have traveled this wide land and have yet to run across an
American/English accent that I cannot understand, nor have those I met been
unable to understand me. We have no standard. We just all work real hard at
understanding each other. We are a melting pot, a nation of cultural mutts.
We take pride in that, and in the cultural hybrid vigor that will keep us
strong when the more determinedly "pure" cultures have faded into history.
Our language changes, not only from region to region, but from generation to
generation, and we still manage to speak and understand our English dialects
from sea to shining sea. It ain't that big a deal. Truly. It's not.
Jerri

Stan Brown

2003-11-11 04:02:35 UTC

Post by Jerri
I have traveled this wide land and have yet to run across an
American/English accent that I cannot understand, nor have those I met been
unable to understand me. We have no standard. We just all work real hard at
understanding each other.

I would not go so far as to say we have mutually incomprehensible
dialects in the US. But (say) someone from the deep South and
someone from New England may occasionally have to work extra hard to
understand each other.

When I went to college in Cleveland, my advisor was an Oxford-
trained physicist. I don't know whether he was born in India, but he
had an Indian name (a distinguished one: Chandrasekhar). I happened
to be in his office while he was trying to make himself understood
to a long-distance operator. Their dialects were nearly mutually
incomprehensible: he had to try several pronunciations of the second
word in "Bell Laboratories" before he finally got his point across.

s***@nomail.com

2003-11-09 21:55:34 UTC

Yuk Tang <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
: Throughout the UK, there is an accepted standard accent/dialect that
: everyone understands. From what I've been told, this also applies to
: the lands of the former British Empire.

I have never noticed Canadians modifying their accent or
pronounciation on my account.

Stephen

W. Citoan

2003-11-09 22:25:12 UTC

Post by s***@nomail.com

Post by W. Citoan
The United Kingdom's English is not the same as America's
English.

But it's the one that's understood anywhere in the world where
they speak English. Hence 'standard'. Does anyone understand the
meaning of the word?

Where in the English speaking world is America's English not
understood? Give me an example of how this 'standard' you are
talking about is understood everywhere.

And here is demonstrated the flaw (from an American perspective) with
your arguement. There is no such compromise. Unlike your Cockney
example, if a New Yorker and a Texan meet, they don't switch to some
standard. They continue to speak in their respective dialects.

Post by Yuk Tang
Throughout the UK, there is an accepted standard accent/dialect that
everyone understands. From what I've been told, this also applies to
the lands of the former British Empire. My guess is that American
cultural imperialism may have achieved a similar effect, but this
'American standard' isn't typified by your current head of state (who
is famously incomprehensible). Perhaps you can point me to an
example of a clear American standard?

English from Midwestern US is considered the most accent free. But it
is not considered a standard in the sense you mean.

Go into a New York school classroom with a New York native teacher and
you'll hear New York English being used. While proper grammar will be
taught, the pronounciation will be in the New York dialect.

- W. Citoan

--
Events are not affected, they develop.
-- Sri Aurobindo

the softrat

2003-11-10 08:17:59 UTC

On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 22:25:12 -0000, "W. Citoan"

Post by W. Citoan
Unlike your Cockney
example, if a New Yorker and a Texan meet, they don't switch to some
standard.

Not true if they are educated and really want to communicate with each
other. Both switch to an approximation of 'Standard American' as
exemplified by the TV news. Of course each person's approximation of
Standard American is different. It's only the ignorant hicks who
refuse to alter their regional dialect. (Mostly because they don't
know how to.)

I have observed this phenomenon from San Diego, California, to
Portland, Maine, and from Seattle, Washington, to Tampa, Florida. I'm
convinced that it happens everywhere with every language.

the softrat
Curmudgeon-at-Large
mailto:***@pobox.com
--

W. Citoan

2003-11-09 18:52:19 UTC

Post by Stan Brown
You reveal your ignorance. There is not one standard for
pronunciation, there are many.

So I guess I must have been imagining things when I heard an east
Londoner and a Glaswegian talking, and they switched between their
natural accents and the standard one of which I speak.

The United Kingdom's English is not the same as America's English.

But it's the one that's understood anywhere in the world where they
speak English. Hence 'standard'. Does anyone understand the meaning
of the word?

American English (at least Midwestern American English) is also one
that's understood anywhere in the world where they speak English. So
hence, by your logic, it's "standard" as well.

Yes, we understand the meaning of "standard". It's not clear that you
do.

Post by Stan Brown
Regional dialects are not "wrong", though some have less cachet
than others (usually based on the income level of people who
speak them).

Straw man. Regional dialects are not 'wrong' - they are not
standard. People learn to speak in their local accent, just as
people learn whatever they happen to learn, without restriction.
However, people are taught the standard dialect, just as people
are taught a central curriculum (the three Rs).

Your "standard dialect" is itself a regional dialect.

How does that contradict what I've said?

As I said, it's not clear you understand the definition...

Post by W. Citoan
A "central curriculum"? If you're simply stating everyone is taught
(or is supposed to be taught) reading, writing, and arithmetic, than
that is true. But that is hardly a "central curriculum."
Curriculums vary more widely (especially as grade levels increase)
than dialects.

But the core does not change; basic schooling teaches one to read and
write in one's language, and basic arithmetic. Anyone who'd ever
been to school is assumed to have achieved basic literacy and
numeracy.

Those familiar with America's high school & college sports programs
won't make that assumption...

I agreed that everyone is taught reading, writing, and arithmetic. But
curriculum means much more than that.

- W. Citoan

--
Argue for your limitations, and sure enough, they're yours.
-- Messiah's Handbook : Reminders for the Advanced Soul

Yuk Tang

2003-11-09 21:05:35 UTC

Post by W. Citoan
The United Kingdom's English is not the same as America's
English.

But it's the one that's understood anywhere in the world where
they speak English. Hence 'standard'. Does anyone understand
the meaning of the word?

American English (at least Midwestern American English) is also
one that's understood anywhere in the world where they speak
English. So hence, by your logic, it's "standard" as well.

And why not? Standards can exist alongside each other, unless they are
directly contradictory.

Post by W. Citoan
Yes, we understand the meaning of "standard". It's not clear that
you do.

How?

Post by W. Citoan
Your "standard dialect" is itself a regional dialect.

How does that contradict what I've said?

As I said, it's not clear you understand the definition...

? A standard, though it may have been derived from an existing local
variation, is one that is accepted by everyone. Once again, how does
the above contradict what I've said?

But the core does not change; basic schooling teaches one to
read and write in one's language, and basic arithmetic. Anyone
who'd ever been to school is assumed to have achieved basic
literacy and numeracy.

Those familiar with America's high school & college sports
programs won't make that assumption...

Explain?

Post by W. Citoan
I agreed that everyone is taught reading, writing, and arithmetic.
But curriculum means much more than that.

But _any_ schooling has to contain basic reading, writing and
arithmetic. That is the standard. There are variations on this, but
_they_ do not constitute the basic standard.

In the UK, the National Curriculum is the syllabus that's taught to
everyone in the country. A more universal curriculm will be inversely
smaller, until we find the common core.

--
Cheers, ymt.
Email to: jim dot laker one at btopenworld dot com

W. Citoan

2003-11-09 21:58:30 UTC

Post by W. Citoan
The United Kingdom's English is not the same as America's
English.

But it's the one that's understood anywhere in the world where
they speak English. Hence 'standard'. Does anyone understand the
meaning of the word?

American English (at least Midwestern American English) is also one
that's understood anywhere in the world where they speak English.
So hence, by your logic, it's "standard" as well.

And why not? Standards can exist alongside each other, unless they
are directly contradictory.

Your claim was that there is a standard English; not that there is a
standard per country. US and US English are not the same and they do
conflict with each other. So they cannot each be "the standard".

Post by W. Citoan
Yes, we understand the meaning of "standard". It's not clear that
you do.

How?

See above...

Post by W. Citoan
Your "standard dialect" is itself a regional dialect.

How does that contradict what I've said?

As I said, it's not clear you understand the definition...

? A standard, though it may have been derived from an existing local
variation, is one that is accepted by everyone. Once again, how does
the above contradict what I've said?

If a standard is regional (i.e. it's not everyones standard), than it
isn't accepted by everyone. Hence, regional contradicts standard.

But the core does not change; basic schooling teaches one to read
and write in one's language, and basic arithmetic. Anyone who'd
ever been to school is assumed to have achieved basic literacy and
numeracy.

Those familiar with America's high school & college sports programs
won't make that assumption...

Explain?

Sorry, that was meant to be an aside. It doesn't really relate to this
discussion. It's a reference to several cases where prominent athletes
have graduated from college and yet had elementary level (or less)
reading ability.

- W. Citoan

--
A woman, especially if she have the misfortune of knowing anything,
should conceal it as well as she can.
-- Jane Austen

Yuk Tang

2003-11-09 22:39:54 UTC

Post by W. Citoan
American English (at least Midwestern American English) is also
one that's understood anywhere in the world where they speak
English. So hence, by your logic, it's "standard" as well.

And why not? Standards can exist alongside each other, unless
they are directly contradictory.

Your claim was that there is a standard English; not that there is
a standard per country. US and US English are not the same and
they do conflict with each other. So they cannot each be "the
standard".

Even within Chinese there are standards (plural). Within Guangdong
there are numerous local dialects (my cousin often doesn't understand
what I say, even though our villages are barely 10 miles apart), but
there is a central dialect which is understood by everyone who speaks
Cantonese. That dialect comes from a particular part of Guangdong.
And above all this, there is a national standard. But among expats,
who (so I've heard) originate mostly from Guangdong province, Cantonese
is the standard. And among those who still can't make themselves
understood, there's yet another communication standard: the script.

A standard becomes necessary with bureaucracy. A national standard
becomes necessary with a nation-wide bureaucracy. And so on if that
nation becomes an empire. Within local areas, local standards may be
tolerated. But an overarching standard, or at least compatible
standards, have to be present to unify the whole.

From what little I know of computer networking, this applies to
protocols as much as it does to RL languages. After all, networking is
what it's about.

Post by W. Citoan
Yes, we understand the meaning of "standard". It's not clear
that you do.

How?

See above...

Still mystified.

Post by W. Citoan
Your "standard dialect" is itself a regional dialect.

How does that contradict what I've said?

As I said, it's not clear you understand the definition...

? A standard, though it may have been derived from an existing
local variation, is one that is accepted by everyone. Once
again, how does the above contradict what I've said?

If a standard is regional (i.e. it's not everyones standard), than
it isn't accepted by everyone. Hence, regional contradicts
standard.

Are you saying that standards spring forth spontaneously from Zeus'
head, resplendent in armour and ready for action? In reality, they
tend to be based on existing rules, probably closest to the centre of
power. Language standards tend to be based on regional dialects,
probably closest to the seat of government.

--
Cheers, ymt.
Email to: jim dot laker one at btopenworld dot com

W. Citoan

2003-11-10 00:58:23 UTC

Post by Yuk Tang
Even within Chinese there are standards (plural).

You claimed there was "a" standard for English. The fact that Chinese
has multiple standards [1] doesn't help your arguement.

- W. Citoan

[1] Though use of standard in this context doesn't match your original
definition...

--
I can resist anything but temptation.

Yuk Tang

2003-11-10 01:20:11 UTC

Post by Yuk Tang
Even within Chinese there are standards (plural).

You claimed there was "a" standard for English. The fact that
Chinese has multiple standards [1] doesn't help your arguement.

You and I were arguing about our understanding of the meaning of
standard. I gave examples spanning other languages, and even non-
languages. You were refuting, I was defining; which is reasonable,
considering I was making the claim. But therein lies the direction of
the thread.

Post by W. Citoan
[1] Though use of standard in this context doesn't match your
original definition...

English is taught in schools to a particular standard. However it's
learnt at home is different. Cantonese schools teach Cantonese to a
particular standard. Children hear a different Cantonese spoken at
home, one that is not formally taught (and is indeed at times
discouraged). How does this not bear out the above?

--
Cheers, ymt.
Email to: jim dot laker one at btopenworld dot com

W. Citoan

2003-11-10 01:55:30 UTC

Post by Yuk Tang
Even within Chinese there are standards (plural).

You claimed there was "a" standard for English. The fact that
Chinese has multiple standards [1] doesn't help your arguement.

I was claiming there cannot be a single standard if it doesn't apply to
all. If you want to argue there are multiple standards, that is
different than claiming there is a single standard.

Post by W. Citoan
[1] Though use of standard in this context doesn't match your
original definition...

I already pointed out that in the US you will hear the regional dialect
in the school; not a supposed standard. Unless you wish to dilute the
meaning of standard to encompass any dialect...

English is not the same as Chinese. You are trying to draw parallels
that don't exist.

- W. Citoan

--
Why can't you be a non-conformist like everyone else?

Yuk Tang

2003-11-10 09:55:21 UTC

Post by W. Citoan
I already pointed out that in the US you will hear the regional
dialect in the school; not a supposed standard. Unless you wish
to dilute the meaning of standard to encompass any dialect...

A standard is something that encompasses many different variations
under one recognised norm. Maybe it's a bit different in the US, but,
especially in the more rural areas, there are large numbers of dialects
in a relatively small area. Pygmalion may have been OTT, but until ten
years ago, one could place an accent within this corner of Essex, with
natives distinguishable from migrants from east or north London. It's
only with greater prosperity and hence movement that the differences
have disappeared, to be replaced by a greater conglomerate.

Post by W. Citoan
English is not the same as Chinese. You are trying to draw
parallels that don't exist.

I've observed it in UK English. I've observed it in Cantonese Chinese.
AFAIK, the relationship between norm and variant also appears in
mainland Chinese, and other languages. I'll accept that it may be
different in the US, which has had a rather different history from the
rest of the world (shorter, and virtually beginning with the modern
age).

The rules are simple. Within a rural society with little movement
between villages, distinct dialects develop. A government that unifies
all the villages into a super-entity has to find a way of facilitating
communication. It usually adopts the nearest dialect, or that
belonging to the strongest power group as the standard. That standard
may adapt with time, but it remains similar to its original form.

With more movement between societies, people start adopting sounds and
vocabulary from other circles, and the distinction between dialects
begins to disappear, either by its change into a compromised entity, or
by the breakdown of rules governing a dialect. Ie. the forming of a
new whole with features from the many, or (and this is not mutually
exclusive) the splintering of recognisable dialects into those unique
to each individual, where the scope for mutual understanding becomes
more limited.

--
Cheers, ymt.
Email to: jim dot laker one at btopenworld dot com

Jerri

2003-11-09 19:41:17 UTC

Post by Yuk Tang
Straw man. Regional dialects are not 'wrong' -
they are not standard. People learn to speak
in their local accent, just as people learn
whatever they happen to learn, without restriction.
However, people are taught the standard
dialect, just as people are taught a central
curriculum (the three Rs).

Hang on there a minute. Who decided which is the "standard" dialect? We
didn't get to vote on a committee. We didn't get to vote on a dialect. So
somebody just up 'n' decided that one way of speaking is standard and
everything else is inferior somehow? That don't wash where I come from. Are
these people out in public so's we can discuss the matter with 'em and show
'em the errors of their ways. They can't possibly be dead, because English
is a living, growing language and dead people ain't supposed to have a vote
about what was just invented, maybe, yesterday. So haul 'em out here and
we'll decide if they know whereof they speak ... of. I mean ... I mean ...
I don't want to get political here, but when our President ... our duly
appointed President of the United States of America ... hasn't accepted any
standard at all in his speech, why should the rest of anyone else at all?
Jerri [used to could be able to crucify long, complex sentences on the
chalkboard ... but discarded the whole sport as less than fun and more than
a little anal]

Stan Brown

2003-11-11 03:56:44 UTC

Post by Stan Brown
You reveal your ignorance. There is not one standard for
pronunciation, there are many.

So I guess I must have been imagining things when I heard an east
Londoner and a Glaswegian talking, and they switched between their
natural accents and the standard one of which I speak.

Are you really unable to make a distinction between what you heard
(which I do not deny) and how you interpret it (which is
questionable at best)?

Yuk Tang

2003-11-11 12:23:25 UTC

Post by Stan Brown
You reveal your ignorance. There is not one standard for
pronunciation, there are many.

So I guess I must have been imagining things when I heard an east
Londoner and a Glaswegian talking, and they switched between their
natural accents and the standard one of which I speak.

Are you really unable to make a distinction between what you heard
(which I do not deny) and how you interpret it (which is
questionable at best)?

G: Says something.
L: What?
G: Says it again.
L: Still puzzled.
G: Says the original again, in more carefully enunciated, 'standard'
form.
L: Aaah!

[Conversation continues]

How else would you interpret the above?

--
Cheers, ymt.
Email to: jim dot laker one at btopenworld dot com

A Tsar Is Born

2003-11-12 01:48:16 UTC

Post by Stan Brown
Whether leading h is pronounced has varied from one English-speaking
country to another, and from one class to another within a country,
and over time. You and Yuk and Yohalem are all wrong if you attempt
to state what is "right" or "wrong" because the answer depends on
who is speaking, and when.

I didn't state what was right or wrong, I said that one said "an historian,"
and many quite grammatical and learned folk do.

It really is said, you know.

That's all I said.

Tsar Parmathule

Jerri

2003-11-08 13:18:15 UTC

Post by Yuk Tang
One doesn't say "an historian". One says "a historian".
One says "an hour". If a word begins with a vowel
sound, one uses 'an' and 'th-ee' (the). Otherwise,
'a' and 'th-er' (the).

Not wanting to burst any bubbles, but one certainly does say "an historian"
... it flows quite nicely, as opposed to the artificially harsh "a
historian". Many folk who were brought up saying "erb" for herb, now call a
herb a herb, as well. The languge is liquid.
Jerri

Yuk Tang

2003-11-08 15:48:04 UTC

Post by Yuk Tang
One doesn't say "an historian". One says "a historian".
One says "an hour". If a word begins with a vowel
sound, one uses 'an' and 'th-ee' (the). Otherwise,
'a' and 'th-er' (the).

Not wanting to burst any bubbles, but one certainly does say "an historian"

I've never heard it said thus, in RL or on TV or radio.

Post by Jerri
... it flows quite nicely, as opposed to the
artificially harsh "a historian".

The consonant is pronounced, so 'an' breaks up the flow. Unless you
pronounce it 'an istorian', in which case you'd still be wrong.

Post by Jerri
Many folk who were brought up
saying "erb" for herb, now call a herb a herb, as well. The
languge is liquid. Jerri

And we used to talk about 'ow 'ard we were at school. Just because the
language is fluid, doesn't mean it's right. Tell me, how do you use
apostrophes?

--
Cheers, ymt.
Email to: jim dot laker one at btopenworld dot com

Jerri

2003-11-08 17:43:33 UTC

Post by Yuk Tang
One doesn't say "an historian". One says "a historian".
One says "an hour". If a word begins with a vowel
sound, one uses 'an' and 'th-ee' (the). Otherwise,
'a' and 'th-er' (the).

Not wanting to burst any bubbles, but one certainly does
say "an historian"

I've never heard it said thus, in RL or on TV or radio.

I hear it all the time ... it used to bother me, having been brought up with
"a historian". Now I believe "an historian" [pronounced, "an 'istorian"] to
fall more tripplingly from the tongue. It pleases me. I sense that it groks
the fullness. It is a good thing.

Post by Jerri
... it flows quite nicely, as opposed to the
artificially harsh "a historian".

The consonant is pronounced, so 'an' breaks up
the flow. Unless you pronounce it 'an istorian',
in which case you'd still be wrong.

I love it when people are convinced of their own rightness. They are so much
like me. So I am here to tell you that "an 'istorian" is *not* wrong. You
are wrong if you believe it is wrong. I am, of course, correct ... because I
am the least inclined to insist that my way is *the* way. That makes me
nice. My inborn sense of quiet certitude makes me right, e'en though the
slings and arrows of yadda yadda walla walla bing bang..

Post by Jerri
Many folk who were brought up
saying "erb" for herb, now call a herb
a herb, as well. The languge is liquid.

And we used to talk about 'ow 'ard we were
at school. Just because the language is fluid,
doesn't mean it's right. Tell me, how do you use
apostrophes?

I use apostrophes with care. As a lady of advanced years, I often type in a
homonym of the word I plan to type; however, I do try to keep a weather eye
out for the correct usage of "its" and "it's" and "its'". I realize that
there is a rat in separate, and my 6th grade reading teacher once announced
to the class that I was a "comma-making fool." She could have said much
worse, and I appreciate that her concentration on commas kept me from
becoming hidebound in reference to the other eddies and riptides of the
English language. Burma Shave.
Jerri

Yuk Tang

2003-11-08 18:07:48 UTC

Post by Yuk Tang
One doesn't say "an historian". One says "a historian".
One says "an hour". If a word begins with a vowel
sound, one uses 'an' and 'th-ee' (the). Otherwise,
'a' and 'th-er' (the).

Not wanting to burst any bubbles, but one certainly does
say "an historian"

I've never heard it said thus, in RL or on TV or radio.

I hear it all the time ... it used to bother me, having been
brought up with "a historian". Now I believe "an historian"
[pronounced, "an 'istorian"] to fall more tripplingly from the
tongue. It pleases me. I sense that it groks the fullness. It is a
good thing.

I'll allow for that, but please note the difference between speaking it
and teaching it, which is what rules are about.

Post by Jerri
... it flows quite nicely, as opposed to the
artificially harsh "a historian".

The consonant is pronounced, so 'an' breaks up
the flow. Unless you pronounce it 'an istorian',
in which case you'd still be wrong.

I love it when people are convinced of their own rightness. They
are so much like me. So I am here to tell you that "an 'istorian"
is *not* wrong. You are wrong if you believe it is wrong.

I have no quarrel with you saying "an 'istorian". I have a problem
with you teaching others to say "an 'istorian", which is what rules are
for. Communication only has to communicate the gist of the meaning to
the receiver; rules involve standardisation, and the standard is _not_
'an istorian'.

--
Cheers, ymt.
Email to: jim dot laker one at btopenworld dot com

Jerri

2003-11-08 19:33:59 UTC

Post by Yuk Tang
I have no quarrel with you saying "an 'istorian".
I have a problem with you teaching others to
say "an 'istorian", which is what rules are
for. Communication only has to communicate
the gist of the meaning to the receiver; rules
involve standardisation, and the standard is _not_
'an istorian'.

If you want to be totally correct, you should have said "I have no quarrel
with your saying "an 'istorian"." ("When the subject is a personal pronoun
or a word standing for a person, it is usually in the genitive."_Writer's
Guide and Index to English_) But none of us is perfect. Standards should be
flexible, lest they be broken when embraced by an o'er-eager congregation.
And language is meant to facilitate communication, not to prevent its happy
advance. You might note that I often begin sentences with conjunctions, a
failing I share with many others. We try not to weep *too* heavily in our
weekly confession, taking comfort in the knowledge that "standards" are not
standard at all, nor ever will they be.
Jerri

Yuk Tang

2003-11-08 20:22:03 UTC

Fair enough; I veer between the two, depending on which lightbulb is on
at the time. Depends on whether I'm in writing mode (when I'll use
'your'), or in conversation mode (when I'll point and say "you").

Post by Jerri
But none of
us is perfect. Standards should be flexible, lest they be broken
when embraced by an o'er-eager congregation. And language is meant
to facilitate communication, not to prevent its happy advance. You
might note that I often begin sentences with conjunctions, a
failing I share with many others. We try not to weep *too* heavily
in our weekly confession, taking comfort in the knowledge that
"standards" are not standard at all, nor ever will they be.

Standards should be simple, not flexible. Broken standards are
variations on the standard; they are not the standard.

And I've never really understood the jihad against beginning sentences
with conjunctions. It's not against any reasonable rule that I know
of, and if the alternative is to have ten line sentence, then I'll have
an 'and', please.

I have a simple rule for usenet writing. If abbreviations and wotnots
save time while retaining their meaning, then it's acceptable (iirc,
lol, etc). However, if mistakes actually take more effort than the
correct version (extra apostrophes, et'c), then war is declared.

--
Cheers, ymt.
Email to: jim dot laker one at btopenworld dot com

Jamie Andrews; real address @ bottom of message

2003-11-10 23:04:47 UTC

Post by Yuk Tang
And I've never really understood the jihad against beginning sentences
with conjunctions. It's not against any reasonable rule that I know
of, and if the alternative is to have ten line sentence, then I'll have
an 'and', please.

To wrench this discussion back on-topic, I note that JRRT
in _The Silmarillion_ and its antecedents has no problem with
starting sentences with "and" and "but", and for that matter
"for" (in the sense of "because"). I try to avoid doing this in
my writings, and IIRC JRRT doesn't use them in LOTR except in
the "archaic" passages.

Perhaps he was aware that this was acceptable in older
modern English, so he adopted it in the "archaized" English that
he was constructing and using. For the passages in LOTR in
modern English, he recognized that it was not usually done anymore.

--Jamie. (nel mezzo del cammin di nostra vita)
andrews .uwo } Merge these two lines to obtain my e-mail address.
@csd .ca } (Unsolicited "bulk" e-mail costs everyone.)

Hellekin

2003-11-11 00:09:14 UTC

Post by Jamie Andrews; real address @ bottom of message
Perhaps he was aware that this was acceptable in older
modern English, so he adopted it in the "archaized" English that
he was constructing and using. For the passages in LOTR in
modern English, he recognized that it was not usually done anymore.

Yes I'm sure that's intentional stylistically in Silm - it's all part of the
beauty of the work (dare I say biblical?).

John Brock

2003-11-08 20:42:20 UTC

Post by Yuk Tang
One doesn't say "an historian". One says "a historian".
One says "an hour". If a word begins with a vowel
sound, one uses 'an' and 'th-ee' (the). Otherwise,
'a' and 'th-er' (the).

How interesting. I speak what I consider to be very correct American
English, and I believe that grammar is defined by usage rather than
the reverse. However my usage here seems to be inconsistent. I
find myself saying "an historian" or "an historic" ("This is an
historic occasion"), but "a history" ("I am reading a history of
the world"). "An history" just sounds very wrong to me, but I'm
not sure why. The best I can figure is that I put the accent on
the first syllable of "history" and the second of "historian".

Hmmm..., I hadn't realized that the pronunciation of "the" also
varied according to the same rule -- I had always thought the
"th-ee" form was just for emphasis -- but now that it has been
pointed out I can see it, and it seems to work out the same way:
"Th-ee history" versus "Th-uh [I'm American remember] historian"

--
John Brock
***@panix.com

A Tsar Is Born

2003-11-17 23:32:21 UTC

Post by Jerri
Not wanting to burst any bubbles, but one certainly does say "an historian"
... it flows quite nicely, as opposed to the artificially harsh "a
historian". Many folk who were brought up saying "erb" for herb, now call a
herb a herb, as well. The languge is liquid.

Reminds me of the time I was walking along the beach in Venice, Calif., and
a guy peered at me intently and said, "Hey -- are you looking for someone? A
guy named -- Herb?" He pronounced the "H" quite distinctly.

Anyway, I wasn't, and didn't buy any.

Tsar P

The American

2003-11-18 17:11:01 UTC

Post by A Tsar Is Born

Post by Jerri
Not wanting to burst any bubbles, but one certainly does say "an

historian"

Post by Jerri
... it flows quite nicely, as opposed to the artificially harsh "a
historian". Many folk who were brought up saying "erb" for herb, now

call

Post by A Tsar Is Born
a

Post by Jerri
herb a herb, as well. The languge is liquid.

Which reminds me of I time I was a teen and walking alone across a local
baseball field.
3 tough looking thugs walked up to me and asked me if I was "Timerider".
I said "no", breathed a sigh of relief, and 20+ years later still wonder
what the heck that was all about.
Was "Timerider" the code-name of their drug contact or was it something so
much more......
:~)

T.A.

Odysseus

2003-11-10 09:26:47 UTC

Post by Yuk Tang
One doesn't say "an historian". One says "a historian". One says "an
hour". If a word begins with a vowel sound, one uses 'an' and 'th-ee'
(the). Otherwise, 'a' and 'th-er' (the).

That depends on two things: whether the H is pronounced in one's
dialect, and what rule one follows for adding an N to the article.
Regarding the first, I think you'd agree that those who say
"'istorian" (IIANM these include British RP speakers) should precede
it with "an". The second part is admittedly more controversial; while
many follow the strictly phonetic rule, never saying "an" before a
word beginning with the H sound, there's another widely followed rule
that requires "an" before an *unstressed* syllable beginning with H,
and adherents of this practice will say "an historian" (but "a
history") and "an hotel". They may be in the minority, but IMO
they're not making a mistake to follow the rule they were taught --
or that they learned from listening to other speakers of their
dialect. In fact this latter rule is found in some 'prestigious'
dialects and is thus often heard from radio announcers.

FWIW in my (Canadian) dialect initial Hs are always pronounced
(except in "heir", "hour", "herb" and perhaps a few other words) and,
as you apparently did, I learned to say "a historian" and "a hotel".

--
Odysseus

John Jones

2003-11-03 19:43:26 UTC

Post by Stan Brown
rec.arts.books.tolkien, The American

Post by The American
Reading Melkor as Melko just drove me nuts!!! (for one example).

In an Oxford accent the pronunciation of the two would have been
very similar -- indistinguishable, to my American ears.
I remember taking third-semester Greek from an Englishman, who
pronounced all the -o verb endings as -or.

Are you sure that he was an Englishman? Joking apart, I would have thought
that in Received Pronunciation 'Melkor' and 'Melko' would be pronounced
quite differently (with, amongst other things, the accent on different parts
of the word). Your tutor must have had what I would look on as a rather
affected accent.

Hellekin

2003-11-04 19:27:14 UTC