dieresis
in [Embedded]
|
Prev: [Way OT] dieresis
Next: Parsing in Embedded Systems
From: D Yuniskis on 9 Mar 2010 12:06 Hi Tim, Tim Williams wrote: > "D Yuniskis" <not.going.to.be(a)seen.com> wrote in message > news:hn3dc2$kvl$1(a)speranza.aioe.org... >> I think that's why USEnglish is so wonky. Too much "stolen" >> from other languages and then bastardized over the years. >> (though I heard a recent commentary alleging USEnglish >> is truer to "old" UKEnglish than current UKEnglish is, today). >> >> Couple that with regional differences (unavoidable with a >> land mass of this size) and its a wonder *anyone* can >> understand it! > > Well, those in the deep South can be pretty thickly accented. <grin> I guess it's all relative. They would consider "yanks" to be the ones with the accents. :> I grew up halfway between NYC (strong accents) and Beantown (also strong -- though different -- accents). I *claim* I have *no* accent :> Yet, quite obviously have very regional speech traits (folks from my home *town* say things different from surrounding towns). What I find most amusing is the *terms* we use for different items. And how they vary from region to region. E.g., I grew up with the concept of a "packy" ("package store" -- short for "packaged liquors"). Yet, using this term in many parts of the country has met with puzzled stares. > Then again, those in the UK can be pretty thickly accented, too. How is it > even possible that so many dialects are spoken on an island the size of > Michigan (where, as far as I know, only two dialects are spoken, the odd one <grin> > out being the Yoopers, eh)? We aren't even English and we speak the > language better than the bloody English! ;-) Ooooo... "Dem's be fightin' werds!" Though I am still puzzled by "Aluminium" (I originally thought this to be a friend's mispronunciation of "Aluminum" -- but it is apparently how the Brits say and spell it!) And the appeal of "brilliant" just seems to escape me entirely :-/ (I never did get a good answer to their term for "soda") <shrug>
From: D Yuniskis on 9 Mar 2010 12:24 Hi Boudewijn, Boudewijn Dijkstra wrote: > Op Mon, 08 Mar 2010 19:02:08 +0100 schreef D Yuniskis > <not.going.to.be(a)seen.com>: >> Boudewijn Dijkstra wrote: >>> Op Fri, 05 Mar 2010 00:29:33 +0100 schreef D Yuniskis >>> <not.going.to.be(a)seen.com>: >>>> David Brown wrote: >>>>> D Yuniskis wrote: >>>>>> David Brown wrote: >>>>>>> <rant> >>>> [...] >>>>> Of course, there is the other point that languages change over >>>>> time. While many people would agree that "na�ve" should be spelt >>>>> "na�ve", very few people would write co�perate - it has gone out of >>>>> fashion long ago. >>>> >>>> Sure. Soon, OMG will have a formal dictionary entry, people will >>>> spell "God" (proper) with a lowercase G, etc. >>> Not being a monotheist, I find it offensive to think that some god >>> would somehow deserve a capital letter while others do not. I do >>> recognize >> >> There is no claim that it is any *particular* god. Most >> dictionaries qualify the "G" definition to be "In monotheistic >> religions..." so they cover their bases. > > The point was that somehow monotheistic religions seem to deserve the > great G, while the others are left with a mere g. Well, when it comes to religion, most folks assume *they* are right! :> I recall puzzling over this as a young child: "If 'we' are right, then what about my (close) friends who believe otherwise?" Amusing how easily people gloss over these details when introducing religion to kids! I was always taught that lower case g was a "concept" -- like *an* internet -- whereas uppercase was a (proper noun) specific case -- like The Internet. I no longer suffer from these problems. :> >>> that not all gods were created equal, but that doesn't mean that >>> anyone has the right to define in language that some god (or some >>> group of allegedly exclusive gods) comes before others.
From: D Yuniskis on 9 Mar 2010 12:28 D Yuniskis wrote: > I no longer suffer from these problems. :> Grrrr.... a *better* comment would have been: "But I'm feeling MUCH better, now!" (channeling John Astin)
From: Mel on 9 Mar 2010 13:12 D Yuniskis wrote: > Though I am still puzzled by "Aluminium" (I originally thought > this to be a friend's mispronunciation of "Aluminum" -- but it is > apparently how the Brits say and spell it!) Lithum? Beryllum? Sodum? Potassum? Mel.
From: D Yuniskis on 9 Mar 2010 16:32
Hi Fred, Fred Abse wrote: > On Tue, 09 Mar 2010 13:12:49 -0500, Mel wrote: > >> D Yuniskis wrote: >> >>> Though I am still puzzled by "Aluminium" (I originally thought this to >>> be a friend's mispronunciation of "Aluminum" -- but it is apparently how >>> the Brits say and spell it!) >> Lithum? Beryllum? Sodum? Potassum? >> > > Lanthanium? tantalium? molybdenium? Exactly! The difference seems to be whether or not the syllable before the "-ium" is stressed, or not. Or, perhaps, the "-ium" forces the preceding syllable to be stressed?? Regardless, I've yet to see an explanation of why the differences exist (though I think tanTAlium would be much cooler than TANtalum!) :> |