Actually, I say "potato" but you get the idea.

There is an extremely interesting division of criminology that deals with the identification of the backgrounds of individuals based on their pronunciation. I've read that an expert in this field can correctly identify the part of the country you grew up in, sometimes with an accuracy that pinpoints a specific neighborhood, simply by listening to you recite "Little Red Riding Hood" from memory. This is why I always smile when someone suggests that an "American accent" is either a southern drawl, a nasal New England twang (to include the Bostonian "He paahked the caah in Haahvad Yaahd"), a Texas accent, and little or nothing else.

For me, "hay" has a flatter A sound than "hey" (hard to describe the difference other than that) and "horse"/"hoarse" are also NOT homonyms.

I understand that in England there are just as many, if not more, variations to the language, region by region, even though the land area involved is, of course, much smaller.

Good Grief! I was just feeling good. Richard, I talked with a fellow logophile (in person!) who proved to me that in fact I DO say "ayee". Now I hear that "hey" and "hay" and "horse" and "hoarse" are said differently??? When will this end?????

As CJ says, there are regional differences in pronuciation, even in so small a country as England.

However, the pronciple is the same. In the south of England we pronounce "grass" with a long (but non-dipthong) "a" - as in "father". In the north they pronounce it with a short (but also no dipthong) "a" as in - "cat" (similar to the "usual" US pronunciation).

I can't think how to differentiate between "horse" and "hoarse" - unless it's when the former is pronounced in "cowboy-film" manner - "hoss"!

Don't get hung up on it!

Richard English

Since you asked...

The "hoar" in "hoarse" is pronounced the same as the "hore" in "whore." (I break it down that way since some people aspirate [if that's the word; I'm guessing here] the "w" in words like "whore" and "whale" etc.)

The word "horse" is harder to describe. Let's put it this way. If the pronunciation of the word "hoarse" and the pronunciation of the word "hearse" were to marry, their offspring would be the pronunciation of the word "horse." There! What could be simpler?

As least where I come from, anyway. Maybe it's a New England thing since I was born and raised in Connecticut* though I've lived here in Illinois for about 10 years now. The "hoarse/horse" distinction is a difference so slight even I have to be specifically listening for it to pick it out of a person's speech.

Hmmm... Sounds like a good topic for its own thread.



*(State Motto: "The only state with 3 C's in its name!" We're quite proud of that.)

According to my dictionary the standard UK pronunciations of "horse" and "hoarse" are exactly the same.
Of course there might be regional variations and who knows what variations are to be found outside these shores.
I'm still confused by the fact that in the UK I can rhyme prawn with scorn but in the US I cannot.
How is a poet to work ?

Quid quid latine dictum sit, altum viditur

Read all about my travels around the world here.

quote:

---

I'm still confused by the fact that in the UK I can rhyme prawn with scorn but in the US I cannot.
How is a poet to work ?

---

Very carefully, Bob. Very Carefully!

And to the rest of you, horse and hoarse are identical in pronunciation where I am!

Over here, "prawn" rhymes with "dawn" and "scorn" rhymes with "horn" and so a "prawn/horn" rhyme would definitely miss the boat. It wouldn't come up often in poetry, though, since few Americans know what a prawn even is. "Crayfish" is the more common (if slightly incorrect) term most often used.

Regarding "horse/hoarse," this thread has caused me to ask around and, yes, suspicions confirmed, I am nuts. Or, anyway, that's what everyone so far is informing me when I try to explain the difference in pronunciation. Elsewhere on this board it has been mentioned that face-to-face discussions are so much easier than these postings but the variation of these two words is so incredibly slight that since I've been talking about them for a while, they're blending together now even to me! I'm almost sorry I brought it up but I swear that, where I come from anyway, the two words are about as close to being homophones without exactly, precisely, totally on the button hitting the mark as they can be.

quote:

---

Originally posted by C J Strolin:
Over here, "prawn" rhymes with "dawn" and "scorn" rhymes with "horn" .

---

True over here too ! But here's the interesting thing - over here "prawn", "dawn", "horn" and "scorn" all rhyme with each other.

If I ever become a published poet I'm going to have to have a clause in my contract that says "for UK distribution only".

Quid quid latine dictum sit, altum viditur

Read all about my travels around the world here.

quote:

---

I'm almost sorry I brought it up but I swear that...

---

Don't be CJ! We have had fun with it, though I have to agree with your friends who say you're crazy! We have had some good dialogue, and that is important when starting a board. The early posts on this board were mostly isolated ones with little give & take. I have enjoyed this board immensely lately!

quote:

---

Elsewhere on this board it has been mentioned that face-to-face discussions are so much easier...

---

So, where did we say we were going to meet?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Morgan:
So, where did we say we were going to meet?

---

Well, we need somewhere that's equally (in)convenient for everybody but there's nothing much in the mid-Atlantic. Shall we say the Azores ?
How does Thursday sound ?
If I'm not there start without me.

Quid quid latine dictum sit, altum viditur

Read all about my travels around the world here.

Quite agree, B.H.!

I lived in the Azores for two years in the 70's while stationed on the Air Force base on Terceira. The food (especially the alcatra [spelling?] and the fresh baked bread and homemade butter!), the wine, the people, all truly, truly memorable.

My wife and I took a trip to the neighboring island of San Miguel where we tasted a unique meal called "Volcano Baked Chicken," a dish prepared by wrapping a chicken in spices and some sort of leaves and then burying it for some six hours nearby the hot sulfuric springs there. The recipe literally begins, "Take one small volcano..." and the taste is unavailable anywhere else in the world since you have to use those hot springs.

When my second daughter was born there I gave out little bottles of Mateus marked "It's a Girl!" instead of cigars. My wife and I had to get special paperwork filled out with the local government so that she wouldn't be drafted into the Portugese armed forces 18 years later.

I was there before the big earthquake. I'm told that this event, along with the onslaught of McDonald's restaurants and all that goes with it, has altered the landscape to the point that I probably wouldn't recognize the place.

Oh, well...

I'm game. Thursday it is. Meet you all at 7:00 pm in the local restaurant.

quote:

---

Meet you all at 7:00 pm in the local restaurant.

---

Anywhere but McDonald's!

quote:

Originally posted by Kalleh:
OH, HOLY SWEET JESUS ON A MOPED!!!

CJ, I laughed at that comment until I literally fell on the floor!

BTW, I also say "fire" with 2 syllables. The dictionaries are just downright crazy. Does anyone here actually say those 2 words with 1 syllable????

Yup.
It has always been a single syllable for me.
Consider the firing squad. What is the dreaded command. Single syllable single volley single death.
We have bush fires not bush fieres.
I understand the regional differences but the good ol' U S of America is merely a region not the world and the English spoken in the United States of America is a derivative not a new language.

I just ran across the word cwm (kōōm). I didn't recognize it, but I found out it was first mentioned on this board in 2003. I must have been sleeping that day.

Anyway, my question is, is the w in cwm a vowel or a consonant? The definitions I linked to say a vowel or a consonant is a sound or a letter representing that sound. It sounds like a vowel, but looks like a consonant. When I looked up w, I found it's a semivowel, "a speech sound of vowel quality used as a consonant, as (w) in wet or (y) in yet." I don't understand that definition at all, and the OED Online wasn't much help, either: "A vocal sound that partakes of the nature of a vowel and of a consonant; a letter representing such a sound. The general literary use echoes that of the Roman grammarians, who applied the term to the spirants and liquids (including nasals), f, l, m, n, r, s, x. As a technical term the word now most commonly denotes only w and y but sometimes it includes these together with the liquids and nasals, chiefly in their non-syllabic values." I couldn't understand Wikipedia, either. Can anybody explain it in such a way I can understand it?

I also found the word crwth.

Tinman

This message has been edited. Last edited by: tinman,

In Welsh, w and y represent both semi-vowels (i.e., w, y) or vowels (i.e., u, i). (In fact, in Middle Welsh, there was a dotted y.) To answer your question, the w in cwm is a vowel.

Sounds can be categorized by where in the vocal tract they are made (place of articulation) and by how they are made (manner of articulation). (There are some other kinds of co-articulation, like voicing, aspiration, length, gemination, etc., but I'll ignore these for now.) In English, the places of articulation are, roughly, with both the lips (bilabial, p, b, m), with teeth and lips (labio-dental, f, v), the ridge behind the top row of teeth (alveolar, t, d, n), and the soft palate (velar, k, g, ng). As for manner of articulation, in English, there are stops (or plosives, e.g., p, b, t, d, k, g), fricatives (e.g., f, v, th, s, z), nasals (e.g., m, n, ng), and glides/resonants (e.g., l, r, y, w).

These are all sounds (or phonemes). How they are represented in English orthography is another thing. In English, y and w usually represent semi-vowels, but y can also be a vowel ("a, e, i, o, u, and sometimes y"). It's only in cwm or crwth that you find w is a vowel (like a longish u).

Do linguists have vowel movements?

quote:

I didn't recognize it, but I found out it was first mentioned on this board in 2003. I must have been sleeping that day.

Ah, well, I was the one who mentioned it, and I don't remember it, either. Apparently it means a valley or glen, though the Strange and Unusual References defined it as a natural amphitheatre. That source said that most English speakers consider cwm to be an all-consonant word.

That source said that most English speakers consider cwm to be an all-consonant word.

Well, this English speaker does not. It's pretty simply. No matter how it's spelled, it's pronounced /'kum/ which is pretty much CVC. If that's too bothersome, you could always spell it coomb. Then you have a b which is not a consonant, because it's silent.

The first time I drove around Los Angeles I noticed all these roadsigns for <something> Cyn. I thought, Wow, that must be Welsh, like Cymru. I wondered if there were Welsh enclaves in LA, like Little Saigon, but filled with ruddy Welsh expatriates, who hung out at local English-themed pubs and groused about beer and football and English-themed pubs, then got into their hybrids and drove to their hillside homes.

Then I realized it was an abbreviation for canyon.

quote:

That source said that most English speakers consider cwm to be an all-consonant word.

English speakers probably would consider the words to be all-consonant (and unpronounceable). Welsh speakers, however, would think quite differently.

Welsh is no more alike English than is French, Spanish or German. Indeed, some would say it is even more different.

The fact that Wales is a country within the UK does not mean that its inhabitants' native tongue is English, any more than the fact that Mexico is a country within North America means that its native tongue is English.

quote:

I wondered if there were Welsh enclaves in LA, like Little Saigon, but filled with ruddy Welsh expatriates, who hung out at local English-themed pubs and groused about beer and football and English-themed pubs,

Highly unlikely, I would guess. They might hang out in Welsh-themed pubs and grouse about Rugby and the English, though.

quote:

Originally posted by zmježd:
If that's too bothersome, you could always spell it coomb. Then you have a b which is not a consonant, because it's silent.

I live in a road named Elliscombe Road. There are several other ~combe roads in the area (Eastcombe Avenue, Westcome Hill, etc). Mr Ellis was the developer who built the estate in the early 1900s.

Welsh (and Breton and Gaelic), along with French (and the other Romance languages), as well as German, Russian, Latvian, Albanian, Armenian, and Hindi are all related to one another, and are more alike to one another than they are to some unrelated languages like Dyribal, Sesotho, or Inuit.

I am sure there will be similarities - but I reckon there are more differences. This is the Lord's prayer in Welsh:

Ein tad, yr hwn wyt yn y nefoedd,
Sancteiddier dy enw.
Deled dy deyrnas.
Gwneler dy ewyllys, megis yn y nef, felly ar y ddaear hefyd.
Dyro i ni heddiw ein bara beunyddiol.
A maddau i ni ein dyledion, fel y maddeuwn ninnau i'n dyledwyr.
Ac nac arwain ni i brofedigaeth; eithr gwared ni rhag drwg.
Canys eiddot ti yw'r deyrnas, a'r nerth, a'r gogoniant, yn oes oesoedd.

Amen.

I can manage the last line!

Yes, it's all relative. Here's the Lord's prayer in Mandarin Chinese (simplified characters):

quote:

我們在天上的父，
願人都尊祢的名為聖，
願祢的國降臨，
願祢的旨意行在地上，
如同行在天上。
我們日用的飲食，今日賜給我們，
免我們的債，如同我們免了人的債，
不叫我們遇見試探，
救我們脫離兇惡，
[因為國度、權柄、榮耀，全是祢的，
直到永遠。阿們！ ]

See this Wikipedia page for more versions.

Though there are similarities between all the Indo-European languages which I mentioned in my posting, I was specifically talking about the syntactic structures of the languages. There are many vocabulary similarities, too.

For example, the word nefoedd 'heavens', (sg. nef) is related to Greek nephos 'cloud, fog', German Nebel 'fog', and possibly Latin Neptunus. OTOH, Mandarin 天 tian is not related to any English or Welsh words that I know of.

Sancteiddier, from the Welsh translation posted by Richard, obviously means "hallowed" in English. Cf. the Latin sanctificare, "to make holy", from the root sanctus, "holy". I suspect it came into Welsh via the Latin Mass.

quote:

Highly unlikely, I would guess. They might hang out in Welsh-themed pubs and grouse about Rugby and the English, though.

I doubt there are any Welsh-themed pubs in LA. It is too fine a distinction for Angelinos, who recognize only English, Scottish, Irish and Australian as distinct subclasses of Brits.

There was a Prince of Wales pub in San Mateo close to where I worked in Redwood Shores. It was the home of the habanero burger.

quote:

Well, this English speaker does not. It's pretty simply. No matter how it's spelled, it's pronounced /'kum/ which is pretty much CVC.

Well, the source did say "most" English speakers. I'd say linguists and language lovers, like you Zmj, would be on the high end. On the other hand, I looked the site over a bit because I hadn't seen it before and I added it to our Links for Linguaphiles. It didn't seem that good, and much of it seemed to be aimed at buying their books.

quote:

I doubt there are any Welsh-themed pubs in LA. It is too fine a distinction for Angelinos, who recognize only English, Scottish, Irish and Australian as distinct subclasses of Brits.

It's been a long time since I was in Los Angeles - but I certainly recall having see Irish themed pubs in other US cities. Welsh pubs, no. Indeed there are very few such anywhere in my experience

But I doubt that any who regard themselves as Welsh, or of Welsh descent, would patronise Engliahs pubs and talk about the English. Although Americans might not realise there's a difference between the various countries of the British Isles (or even the British Commonwealth) I can assure you that the Welsh and Scots certainly do.

And as for the Irish - they are not connected with the English any more than are the citizens of the USA. Like the USA, Ireland was once a British colony and like Americans the Irish speak a form of English. But if that makes the Irish a subclass of the British, then so are Americans.

I once stumbled on an English pub in LA; dartboard, dimpled glasses and a barmaid from Wolverhampton.

I can't say that I've ever heard of any Welsh-themed pubs at all; Scottish, Irish, Australian, New Zealand, South African, even Canadian, but none for the Welsh. Obviously, I don't include pubs that are actually in Wales.

I've visited several pubs in Wales, and they don't differ much from English ones. However, I did notice in the north that in some pubs, as we approached the entrance to the bar, we would hear the usual hubbub of conversation (in English), but as soon as we entered, a silence would fall for a moment or two, then conversation would start again (in Welsh).

In San Francisco, there's Dylan's Pub (nice description here, down the page).

quote:

And as for the Irish - they are not connected with the English any more than are the citizens of the USA

Someone ought to notify Gerry Adams.

Gerry Adams

Or, Éamon de Valera.

quote:

However, I did notice in the north that in some pubs, as we approached the entrance to the bar, we would hear the usual hubbub of conversation (in English), but as soon as we entered, a silence would fall for a moment or two, then conversation would start again (in Welsh).

That is so funny, Arnie!

quote:

Although Americans might not realise there's a difference between the various countries of the British Isles (or even the British Commonwealth) I can assure you that the Welsh and Scots certainly do. And as for the Irish - they are not connected with the English any more than are the citizens of the USA.

I think most Americans realize that about Scotland and Ireland, but Wales just doesn't seem to be on the radar screen...at least here in Chicago. It sounds like it might be different in SF.

quote:

Someone ought to notify Gerry Adams.

Notify whomsoever you wish but facts are facts.

Ireland is a different country from England; it is not in the UK and does not even have the same currency as the UK has. It has its own Government and its own Laws. Ireland can, and has, taken different decisions to the UK in such matters as declaring war - Ireland has often remained out of conflicts that the UK has involved itself with.

Just about the only thing that Ireland has in common with the other countries of the British Islands is that it occupies the same archipelago and English is spoken by most Irish (but they do have their own language - a form of Gaelic).

Northern Ireland is quite different. It is a part of the United Kingdom and shares most of the UK's attributes (although, like Scotland, it has its own legal system).

The century-old "troubles" have been about the partition of the island of Ireland. Some want the whole island to become one country - the Irish Republic - and others want Northern Ireland to remain British. For the moment the island is still divided and, fortunately, at peace.

The century-old "troubles" have been about the partition of the island of Ireland.

Not entirely accurate. The Troubles (Na Trioblóidí in Gaelic) date from the '60s and refer specifically to acts of terrorism carried out by the IRA and the Protestant paramilitary organizations, looked over by the British Army. The Partition of Ireland came about in 1921 with the signing of the Anglo-Irish Treaty. Before that, since 1801, after its parliament was dissolved, the whole of Ireland was part of the UK. The roots of the Troubles go back to the 17th century, around the time that Britain was experimenting with a non-monarchical republic. Non-Irish colonists were sent in to run things, the land, the economy, etc.

There were "troubles" before the 1921 partition came into effect - although I agree that the modern troubles date from the 1960s. Indeed, I was actually in Dublin in 1966 when the IRA blew up Nelson's Pillar, which event could be considered the start of the most recent troubles.

I was just saying that The Troubles usually refer to the modern problems and not to the partition or the problems which lead up to it. Maybe that's why you had quotation marks around your usage.

Let's see if I've got this straight:
Residents of the British Isles are Brits, including -- but not limited to -- Scots, Welsh, English, descendents of Germanic, Scandinavian and Norman invaders, and residents of the islands of England, the islands of Scotland, the islands of Wales, and the Isle of Man, but not islands of Ireland, whose people are Irish and not Brits and not related culturally, geographically, or in any way whatsoever to the Brits, except for the northern counties of Ireland, whose residents occupy some kind of quantum superposition of British and Irish, which collapses on contact with a communion wafer.

Is that more or less right?

quote:

Is that more or less right?

Getting there. But it's the British Islands (that's the geographical name for the whole archipelago). The term "British Isles" means a specific political entity.

Except that England, Scotland and Wales are not islands. And the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man are not part of the UK - but are part of the Islands of Britain. The Irish occupy part of the island of Ireland, which is part of the British Islands - but they are not British. The Northern Irish are as British as are the English.

The situation is not helped by the similarity of the names of quite separate entities. Northern Ireland is not Ireland and Ireland, although it occupies part of the British islands, is not British.

But it's the British Islands (that's the geographical name for the whole archipelago). The term "British Isles" means a specific political entity.

Depends whom you're chatting with. Britannica and Wikipedia disagree with you. Not that that will convince you ... And bringing it back round to words, from the same Wikipedia article, British Isles in some European languages, past and present: (Irish: Éire agus an Bhreatain Mhór or Oileáin Iarthair Eorpa,[2] Manx: Ellanyn Goaldagh, Scottish Gaelic: Eileanan Breatannach, Welsh: Ynysoedd Prydain, French: Îles Britanniques.

quote:

Originally posted by neveu:
Let's see if I've got this straight:
Residents of the British Isles are Brits, including -- but not limited to -- Scots, Welsh, English, descendents of Germanic, Scandinavian and Norman invaders, and residents of the islands of England, the islands of Scotland, the islands of Wales, and the Isle of Man, but not islands of Ireland, whose people are Irish and not Brits and not related culturally, geographically, or in any way whatsoever to the Brits, except for the northern counties of Ireland, whose residents occupy some kind of quantum superposition of British and Irish, which collapses on contact with a communion wafer.

Is that more or less right?

OK, guyes (neveu & RE), clarify pls? I thought this was broad sarcasm, but RE agrees with it (except as noted).

At the risk of sounding like an idiot, why are we positing that, e.g., the residents of Scotland and Ireland have nothing culturally in common? joking, right?

Joking? Moi? I'm just trying to learn and understand.

quote:

At the risk of sounding like an idiot, why are we positing that, e.g., the residents of Scotland and Ireland have nothing culturally in common? joking, right?

Nevue's sentence would have been easier to grasp had it been split into two or more. But my interpretation of it was that he thought that the citizens of all the various countries of the British islands are British, apart from the Irish. Which is true.

However, the Irish have much in common with the British, including their main language, and in that sense are related culturally to the British. Furthermore, since Ireland was ruled by the British for many years and until less than a century ago, there are probably more areas of commonality than there are with, say, the USA which became independent far longer ago.

quote:

joking, right?

Um...I'll eat my hat if neveu wasn't saying that with tongue firmly inserted in cheek. By the way, it was awfully funny, neveu. And Richard's serious response was even funnier.

quote:

And Richard's serious response was even funnier.

It might be thus judged by those who understand the somewhat complex geography and political structure of the British islands - but I'll warrant that there are many who post to this board who do not know the difference between Great Britain, the British Isles, the British islands and the United Kingdom.