| Member |
Vocal chords or vocal cords? I prefer cords, but I feel I'm in a minority. | ||
|
| Member |
Never having thought about this particular word, I immediately typed in "vocal cord" to my wordfinder. I found an interesting discussion about it: quote:So, in American English it's vocal cords. How about you Brits? And welcome to the board, pauld! So nice to have your voice added to the chorus!  | |||
|
| Member |
quote: Thank you, nice to be here! I think I could make a pretty good case that it should be cords, but my feeling is that I see chords much more often than I see cords. I'm interested in people's views of the way usage is going; I'm not too worried about what it should be! Paul. | |||
|
Member |
Pauld, I welcomed you on another thread--but welcome again! As a nurse, I can tell you it is "vocal cord", and I have never seen "chord". Perhaps, though, it is different in England? | |||
|
| Member |
As to spinal chord/cord, isn't the biological group (I don't know if it's a class, phylum, etc.) of all vertebrates called the chordata? Checking: yes, almost. Wikipedia, playing mix-and-match on the issue of to-H-or-not-to-H, says, "Chordates (Phylum Chordata) comprise true vertebrates and animals having a dorsal nervous cord (notochord)." | |||
|
| Member |
quote: And thank you again! quote: I don't think it's a UK/US thing (but you never know). It seems to be more a musical thing, which I suppose is understandable given their familiarity with chords. See for example http://www.music.vt.edu/musicdictionary/textv/Vocalchords.html and (if you're not squeamish -- it's about castrati) http://www.cix.co.uk/~velluti/cast-what.htm In fact the author of that last page hangs around on another forum I inhabit in the UK. I wrote to her privately suggesting that it should be cords and she peremptorially rejected it; she asserted that she had never seen anybody knowledgeable write of vocal cords, and that a few people had mentioned it to her but they were all mistaken and she had no intention of changing it. I felt she was wrong, but wasn't inclined to argue with a lady who was so interested in castrati.  | |||
|
Member |
Since we're talking about vocal chords/cords, will you forgive me breaking out in witty song? This concerns your great-great-great-great (etc. many times) grandfather, who had the original notochord that w-nerd mentioned. The tune is It's a Long Way to Tipperary, from WWI. A fish-like thing appeared among the annelids one day. It hadn't any parapods nor cetae to display. It hadn't any eyes nor jaws, nor ventral nervous cord, But it had a lot of gill slits and it had a notochord. Chorus: It's a long way from Amphioxus. It's a long way to us. It's a long way from Amphioxus to the meanest human cuss. Well, it's goodbye to fins and gill slits, and it's welcome lungs and hair! It's a long, long way from Amphioxus, but we all came from there. It wasn't much to look at and it scarce knew how to swim, And Nereus was very sure it hadn't come from him. The mollusks wouldn't own it and the arthropods got sore, So the poor thing had to burrow in the sand along the shore. He burrowed in the sand before a crab could nip his tail, And he said "Gill slits and miotomes are all to no avail. I've grown some metapleural folds and sport an aural hood, But all these fine new characters don't do me any good. (chorus) He sulked awhile down in the sand without a bit of pep, Then he stiffened up his notochord and said, "I'll beat 'em yet! Let 'em laugh and show their ignorance. I don't mind their jeers. Just wait until I've evolved for a hundred million years. My notochord shall turn into a chain of vertebrae And as fins my metapleural folds will agitate the sea. My tiny dorsal nervous cord will be a mighty brain And the vertebrates shall dominate the animal domain. (chorus) | |||
|
| Member |
quote: | |||
|
| Member |
quote: Can't see it, sorry. In mathematical usage, surely chord refers to lines on diagrams, not actual physical things? The string on a bow is a cord not a chord, even if it is stretched between two points. In musical usage, the chord is the sound something makes, not the something. The strings on a harp would be cords, not chords. | |||
|
Member |
This is sadly so often the case with those who have strong beliefs. "Don't", she is saying, "Confuse me with facts" I know what I believe is right and the rest of you are wrong" I defer to a higher authority, in this case the OED which is quite clear on the matter. It has several definitions of "cord", the second one being " anat. a structure in the body resembling a cord (spinal cord)". "Chord" also has several definitions, one of which is 2 Anat. = cord. In other words, the OED says that either spelling is correct for the anatomical term. Isn't it amazing how people argue about things when, in reality, there is actually no basis for argument! By the way, Pauld, welome to the board - whereabouts in Surrey do you live - I'm in Reigate. Richard English | |||
|
| Member |
quote: So she had some basis for rejecting the attempted correction, then! quote: Thank you Richard. Englefield Green, near Egham. | |||
|
| Member |
Local usage among physicians, speech pathologists, whatever else, is "cords." The OED may well document that other spellings have been used in various places and times but in Northeastern U.S. it's "vocal cords" and the other spelling will be greeted by at best a smiling indulgence... | |||
|
Member |
quote: R.E.'s trying to pick a fight with me again! I will not rise to the bait. Welcome to the board, Pauld, and allow me to introduce myself. Forget the OED. If ever there is anything you would like to know about the English language, feel free to consider me your primary source of information. If there's something I don't know, I'm more than happy to make it up using, as my guides, logic, reason, and good ol' American common sense. Regarding the "vocal cords/chords" question you may be in the minority (though I think not) but "cords" is correct while, at the same time, "chords" is not incorrect for this reason. When you speak the word "chords" the "H" is silent. On the other hand, when you write the word "cords" the "H" is invisible. It's there - you just can't see it. It used to be spelled "c ords" but, like nature, the English language abhors a vacuum so there you have it. Glad to have been of assistance and, by the way, I once dated a woman by the name of jennyd. Any relation? | |||
|
| Member |
quote: I don't think so. My real surname isn't d, you see. | |||
|
| Member |
Oh, Pauld! I'm so happy you have now met our resident expert on everything, C J!   | |||
|
| Member |
quote: Over here, we had a long-running and very popular TV series ("The Fall and Rise of Reginald Perrin") in which one of the main characters was called C J. He was a comedy character. | |||
|
Member |
The two versions of Reggie provide comprehensive proof in arguments over which country produces the best sitcoms. | |||
|
| Member |
The best posters, too! After Paul joined us, I was thinking how fortunate we are to have such a strong English influence. Now, we just need a few women from England! | |||
|
| Member |
quote: But Americans are the most polite and flattering! | |||
|
Member |
quote: And..?  | |||
|
| Member |
quote: Exactly. | |||
|
Member |
quote: A comedy character who suffered from strange delusions. Non curo ! Si metrum no habet, non est poema. Read all about my travels around the world here. Read even more of my travel writing and poems on my weblog. | |||
|
| Member |
quote: Thank you, Morgan. One appreciates being recognized for one's talents. Now that you've made it official, I believe I will sign off as "CJ, REE" (Resident Expert on Everything) for any post in which I am able to assist a fellow wordcrafter with my vast understanding of our beloved Mother Tongue. Particularly, of course, when tongue is held firmly in cheek. Pauld, as a newbie, you haven't experienced the (rather shockingly large) number of times I have posted what I thought was an obvious joke only to reap the wrath of various wordcrafter brethren (and "sistren" if there is such a word) whose senses of humor didn't jibe with my own. In the future, the "CJ, REE" may be taken as meaning "It's a joke, people!" I am, however, an expert in a few fields and if there's any assistance I can offer, I'd be more than happy to. These fields include Limericks, Snowmobiling, and British Beer. (CJ, REE!! CJ, REE!!! Morgan! R.E.! Put down those bullwhips!!) G.N.: "The Fall & Rise of Reginald Perrin" is unknown to me. Are you suggesting that it was transplanted to the states in an inferior form under a different name? I wouldn't doubt it. I saw the pilot episode of "Snavely" which was an absolute abomination, the Americanization of "Fawlty Towers" (along with the Beatles, the best thing to ever come out of the UK, in my opinion) but, thankfully, it was not picked up. Total run - one show which was one show entirely too many. Conversely, "Steptoe & Son" morphed into "Sanford & Son," arguably an improvement, and likewise "To Death do Us Part" rocked our easily jolted American sensibilities as "All in the Family." Then again there's "Are You Being Served?" which has not yet given birth to an American offshoot. I enjoy that one sometimes, particularly the earlier episodes, but let's face it, it's no "Seinfeld." (I can hear R.E. responding "That's like saying Hog's Neck Ale [or whatever] is no Budweiser!" and I agree in both cases.) More info please on "Reggie." | |||
|
| Member |
quote:Awwwww....do I have to?  | |||
|
| Member |
C J - I think the British are quite good at detecting hyperbole. I was amused by your posting. Humour is a tricky thing; I very much enjoyed Seinfeld, The Larry Sanders Show, Friends and Frasier -- all very funny. (Although all were/are shown on a minority channel.) Similarly I think ER, The West Wing, The Sopranos and Six Feet Under are great drama series. But the U.S. versions of popular British series just don't seem to work, at least for us. That Archie Bunker thing was truly dreadful. We had a very popular series here called "The Office" -- cringe-making daily life in a fictitious office. Everybody who had ever worked in a British office recognised it! I gather it's going to be remade for the U.S., but maybe you should watch out for the original. Another excellent British comedy of the "Fawlty Towers" era was "Yes, Minister". Like "The Office", I'm not sure how it would translate. (It was recognisably true, if exaggerated, to British viewers -- indeed the writers later said they had incorporated many true events and received many more supposedly true stories from insiders once the first series had been shown.) quote: Unofficial page Book Video set Yes, Minister: Book Video DVD set | |||
|
| Member |
quote: With my joining this forum, the British influence has increased Stephen. | |||
|
Member |
It's a pleasure to welcome you to the community, the_bear! ~~~~ jerry | |||
|
| Member |
quote: [Bear preens] Why thank you very much. | |||
|
| <Asa Lovejoy> |
Wow! Another Brit! Pretty soon the Yanks will be a minority! Welcome to the motley crew, Bear, and thanks for helping to mottle it all the more. How did the TV series Waiting for God fare in the UK? I liked it almost as much as Farty Towels - er, I mean Fawlty Towers. | ||
|
| Member |
quote: I'm not sure if I'm going to be able to do so right now, because my mottling cummerbund is in the wash. I absolutely adored Waiting for God with the wicked assaults on Daniel Hill's scheming Harvey by Stephanie Cole's Diana Trent and the seeming Alzheimer's of Crowden's Tom Ballard. My partner prefers Flowery Twats, but for my money Waiting for God wins hands down. | |||
|
| Member |
Waiting for God never became a huge hit here on the lines of Fawlty Towers or Reggie Perrin. It did have however steady support from those of us who discovered its delights. I have to take issue with CJ though: quote:I have never seen "Sanford & Son", but I suspect that much of the humour in "Steptoe & Son" was too British to translate well. Certainly it is IMO one of the best-ever sit-coms. "Sanford & Son" would have to be brilliant to be better than that! Another excellent British sitcom was One Foot in the Grave, and I saw a few episode of an American version here on cable TV. It was dire! | |||
|
| Member |
I believe tha tThe Benny Hill Show was very popular in the USA and I would have thought that Benny Hill's humour was very British (probably the nearest thing to an animated Donald McGill postcard that has ever been devised). Richard English | |||
|
| Member |
quote: | |||
|
| Member |
quote:Oh, Richard! I just loved Benny Hill's humor! I used to watch it just before bedtime here. (It was only shown very late at night, long after kids went to bed.)  | |||
|
| Member |
And, back to the subject at hand, weren't we discussing chords vs. cords? What do we cut when a baby is born, to separate it from its mother? | |||
|
| Member |
quote: (Umbilical) cord, definitely. I'd never ever consider umbilical chord. | |||
|
| Member |
C J: Geoffrey Palmer, yes, brilliant. He also starred in Butterflies, a very old comedy, in which he played a perpetually gloomy father. Absolutely excellent. Morgan: Benny Hill ... <shudder> not to my taste, I'm afraid. As many people here hated him as liked him, I think. Have you heard of the Carry On films? Sid James, wonderful. | |||
|
| Member |
"Cord", Morgan. I have been in health care for 20 years, and all "cords" are "cords"....no "h's" (and, I do think the apostrophe is necessary there.) Pardon the extreme ignorance, bear, but is Amsterdam British? Asa, I think we already may have more Brits than Americans here, which is great to me. I love being a minority! I am getting so mixed up about spelling nowadays, using "s's" for "z's" or "our" instead of "or" at the end of words.  quote:Awww, CJ, we all love you! As for humor, it is rather like double dactyls, each to his own. I for one cannot stand Sanford and Sons, while my son has every DVD of it that's available. On the other hand, I think G&S is hysterically funny, and my son thinks it stinks. Does that mean the I have a lousy sense of humor--or that my son does? It is all relative. | |||
|
| Member |
I wonder how Last of the Summer Wine and Dad's Army would play in the US? | |||
|
| Member |
I wonder whether many Americans would even understand what the function of the Home Guard was. I have found that very few "ordinary" US citizens have any idea of what it was like when Britain was the only country left fighting against Hitler. Indeed, some I have spoken to believe that the war didn't really start until the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbour! I do remember, though, as a very young child meeting Wally and Boobly - two US soldiers who were billeted with us and who had all these luxuries (like sweets and chewing gum) that I had never even heard of! In fact, my father was in the Home Guard - not because of his age but because he was in a reserved occupation (transport) and was not released by his firm to serve in the forces - so I can say that I have actually spoken to members of "Dad's Army" Richard English | |||
|
| Member |
quote:Richard, obviously I don't have any facts on this. However, I would guess that Americans and the British have about the same historical knowledge, controlling for population differences. The problem is, we in the U.S. are not shy about reporting our faults to the whole world. Because some poll shows that the man-on-the-street doesn't know where Japan is, doesn't mean that's the norm. Now, as I said, I may be wrong; there may be significant differences between our countries in knowledge of history. I just doubt it. I will say that almost everyone I know has a deep understanding of WWII, though, like the man-on-the-street above, I am probably not a good sample. | |||
|
| Member |
I think Richard's point is that although most Americans probably know the historical facts they don't know what it was like simply because the can't - they weren't here. I don't know what it was like either - I wasn't born until 1957. Sure I understand about rationing and I know from stories and films something of the time but I don't know what it was really like because I wasn't there. Nowadays war has an immediacy created by television that gives us the notion that we do know what it is like - after all we've all seen the pictures of Baghdad, but even now we don't really know what it's like and not just because all reporting must be suspected of bias. We can never know what it's like living in those conditions unless we experienced them. To use a lighter example most of the Americans who havn't travelled outside the US don't know what life in England is like now just as most of the English who haven't been to America don't know what life there is like. When your ideas are formed by TV shows you get a very skewed picture of the world. Non curo ! Si metrum no habet, non est poema. Read all about my travels around the world here. Read even more of my travel writing and poems on my weblog. | |||
|
| Member |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Kalleh: Pardon the extreme ignorance, bear, but is Amsterdam British? QUOTE] No, it's part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands. The same kingdom that gave you New Amsterdam (New York), Wall Street (Waalstraat), Harlem (Haarlem), Brooklyn (Breukelen), and Gramercy (de Kromme Zee) amongst others. Although Amsterdam was never British, you could say that the United Kingdom was arguably under Dutch rule, when William and Mary ruled the States General of The Netherlands (which at the time included Belgium and Luxembourg) and the United Kingdom. William was, of course, related to the Stuarts. His father, William II married Mary Stuart, daughter of King Charles I. Their son, William III married another Mary Stuart, the daughter of King James II (a Catholic) and his third cousin. Because of unrest over King James II's Catholicism, William was persuaded to mount the "Glorious Revolution" (in fact he was invited to do so) and seized power from King James II. He was then ruler of The Netherlands in his own right, and together with Queen Mary, was joint ruler of the United Kingdom. It's pretty highly condensed, but there you have a potted history of three nations all at around the same time. Stephen. | |||
|
| Member |
Thanks, bear. And, just for the record, while I am a "mutt", I am part Dutch.Bob, you make a good point. However, what about books? Now, I realize that you are at the mercy of the author, and you need to be able to read critically. Yet, there are a lot of excellent books out there about WWII, and I feel that I have some kind of an understanding about that war from books. From my perspective, for example, England was a hero to the Jews in WWII, and the U.S. acted way too late with very little. From my reading, I have the utmost respect for Churchill and voted for him as the most important person in the 20th century (remember that vote?) So, I think many of us in the U.S. give England its due respect in WWII. | |||
|
| Member |
It's true that books are likely to give you a better knowledge of a period or a place than television or films but knowledge and understanding are entirely different things. I don't believe it's possible to truly understand without some direct experience. For example you would think that with the number of imported American TV shows and movies that I've seen over the years I'd have been right at home when I first visited America. As reading the rather long description on my web site will show you I wasn't. All sorts of things surprised me. I ate in a McDonalds in Miami that had a visibly armed security guard. The adverts in the Saturday morning cartoons were for the US Marines. There were adverts from lawyers offering to sue your doctor. People in Miami don't walk anywhere ! No-one could understand a word I said. A thousand little things added up to a significant culture shock. Yes I knew a lot about the US but until I visited I didn't realise how little I understood. And that's with a familiar culture. When we look at the past, even the relatively recent past such as WWII, it isn't just another country it's a country we can't visit and so no amount of descriptions can ever really give us that understanding - only the knowledge. Non curo ! Si metrum no habet, non est poema. Read all about my travels around the world here. Read even more of my travel writing and poems on my weblog. | |||
|
| Member |
Bob, First of all, I was in cultural shock when I went to Miami, and I live in the U.S.! Believe me, it is not typical. I have never seen an armed guard in a MacDonalds, and I have been at MacDonalds in Chicago's inner city. As far as advertisements to sue physicians, I am in a unique position of being married to an attorney and having worked for years with physicians. I can only tell you that I have learned to absolutely respect both professions. I have seen some damnedable attorneys. One jackass asked me, at a party no less, to let him know of any brain-damaged babies who were born because they bring in the highest fees! Suffice it to say, I was not cordial to him! However, I have also seen a cardiac surgeon stand in a hall giving report to his residents when a sobbing mother walked up to him and said, "Where is my son?" He looked at her coldly and arrogantly said, "Oh, he died." He then turned away and went back to his residents. So--I have seen the greed and arrogance of both sides. But, those are, by far, the outliers. Mostly, I have seen compassion, giving of time to the poor, dedication, and commitment of both physicians and attorneys. I have the utmost respect for both those professions. After all, every profession has its fools. Mine sure does.quote:That's a hard one, and it probably depends on what you mean by "truly understand". Certainly a lawyer doesn't have to experience breaking the law in order to "truly understand" it or the ramifications of it; similarly, a physician doesn't have to experience a broken hip in order to "truly understand" it. However, in each case they might not "truly understand" what the person is going through. | |||
|
| Member |
quote: I only singled out Miami because it was the first place in the US I ever went. I could just as easily have picked examples from New York, Chicago or New Orleans (especially New Orleans - the only place I have ever stayed where a notice in my hotel room told me it was unsafe to cross the street and enter the park and that I should stay on this side of the street and walk around the block to make sure I didn't stray out of the French Quarter.) And don't even get me started on Los Angeles and Hollywood ! quote: So have I. While we were there a vagrant wandered in swore at my companion, spat in her meal and was chased out by security (admitedly they weren't armed and the management did give us our meals free afterwards). quote: It's not the principle that strikes the English as odd it's the advertisements. In this country until very recently advertising this kind of legal service on TV was not allowed in Britain. Nowadays daytime TV is full of people trying to persuade us to seek compensation for any and all of lifes little accidents even where they have been caused by our own blatant stupidity. (The only adverts that are more frequent are people trying to lend us money usually for consolidation loans that will ultimately leave people in debt for the rest of their lives.) quote: Let's try to explain what I mean by example. I am an unmarried man with no children. Most of my friends are married with children. I can go to their houses and visit and see what it's like to live there. I can claim substantial knowledge of thier households and how they are organised but without children of my own I cannot possibly understand what it is like to have them. Similarly I can empathise with people who have lost a family member who is very close but until my mother died I didn't know what that experience was actually like. That's what I mean when I say that to understand something you need to experience it. Non curo ! Si metrum no habet, non est poema. Read all about my travels around the world here. Read even more of my travel writing and poems on my weblog. | |||
|
| Member |
If you are saying that there are no unsafe areas in England, then, you are right, it is very different from the U.S. I grew up in rural Wisconsin, and nobody ever locked their doors, and my parents kept their keys in the unlocked car. Now, it has changed a bit, but not all that much. People still don't lock their doors unless they are leaving on a vacation. Yet, here is Chicago, yes, it is much different. There are areas where it is unsafe to walk in the day time or at night. Once, being a bit ignorant of those areas, I was waiting for a bus. A policeman stopped, admonished me, and took me to my destination. While we live in a very safe area, there was a shooting in my kids' elementary school in 1988. So, if those things don't happen in England, you are correct that you have never experienced what we have. As far as "truly understanding", we are probably talking about the difference between "empathy" and "sympathy". | |||
|
| Member |
I suspect the "can't understand unless it happened to you" thing is overdone. Of course it's true at one level: things that happen to us are much more important than things that happen to other people. However empathetic I am, pain that is happening to you is less immediate than pain that is happening to me. Having said that, though, I think British people are able to appreciate what our parents and grandparents went through in WW2, but only in an intellectual way, because it didn't happen to us. I don't see, therefore, why our understanding would necessarily be any deeper than that of an American. As for the "two nations separated by a common language", I think there's a lot in that. I feel Americans are very foreign to us (just as much as the Japanese, say) but the foreign-ness is hidden from us because they talk much the same and look much the same. We therefore assume they are like us, and are caught out when they are not. (For example, I have a very English friend currently posted to the Pentagon. He estimates that about half the senior officers he meets are evangelical Christians, and that they talk openly about their religion at work. He can't remember -- in 20 years -- meeting a similar British officer. It seems very strange to us.) I also think there's a cultural snobbery in Britain about the U.S. It makes us feel better to tell ourselves that Americans aren't very bright, don't understand irony, came in late to the war, whatever. Personally, I've met plenty of Americans who are nothing like that stereotype; like all stereotypes, it's based on a tiny minority of the people stereotyped. I have heard many times over here that only 6% of Americans have a passport (the equivalent UK figure is something like 70%). This is used to somehow imply that Americans are unsophisticated or insular. But it's as useful as another statistic that says the average British household owns just six books -- possibly true but meaningless. As for the passport thing, I've also -- but much more rarely -- heard it suggested that the majority of people nowadays travel at most 2,000 miles from where they were born. In the UK that means we need a passport -- the place isn't that big. In the US people can (and do) travel to different climates, timezones, and cultures without ever leaving the US and without therefore needing a passport. They are just as travelled as us, just don't need a passport to be so! As for being ignorant or uncomprehending of other cultures, I don't think you can beat the British lager lout for that. Not only ignorant of, but positively hostile to, other cultures. So, in summary: Americans are not much like us, despite the common language, but are just as varied! Like any other foreign culture, it's fun to explore the differences. Paul. PS: and there's loads of unsafe places in the UK. | |||
|
Copyright © 2002-12