110 messages over 14 pages: << Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 10 ... 13 14 Next >>
Rout
Diglot
Senior Member
United States
Joined 5712 days ago
326 posts - 417 votes 
Speaks: English*, German
Studies: Spanish
Studies: Hindi
| Message 73 of 110 31 May 2009 at 8:10pm | IP Logged |
lynxrunner wrote:
Rout wrote:
witch - which, whence - wince, wine - whine, win - when, wit - whit, whall - wall, wile - while, wail - whale, weel - wheel, &c, &c, &c...
|
|
|
Ok, thank you. I tried to think of some words, but couldn't really think of much.
Quote:
| If you would read my arguments you might find there is more to them than your paraphrase leads one to believe. If continuation of this reply warrants a better statement then I will not stop, viz., if you want ME to make a new argument then please come up with something that authenticates YOUR argument. |
|
|
No, I don't want you to come up with a new argument; I wanted a clarification of the intent of the argument.
Quote:
In the very first post I offered dismay at people cutting words off words and clipping phonology. I then said 'That said, either pronunciation is acceptable.' It should be pronounced phonetically and is, and much more often than you think but either way is acceptable.
Let me add that I don't say 'what' because it makes ME appear educated, as your facetious remarks seem to imply, but that I do it because it IS educated. Are you saying 'wat' sounds more educated? |
|
|
It seems that my point has gone over your head. I was saying that 'hwat' was the pronunciation that many people used when they tried to seem educated; I deduced this from many other things as well. I did not mean to say that it was ONLY used by people who wanted to appear educated - I merely said that, in my experience, it was used more often by people who wanted to appear more educated and not necessarily by educated people in general.
Quote:
| If I understand you correctly: people who think they're educated pronounce the word phonetically and people who are educated don't? Whence on Earth did you procure this information? The tumult these replies bring to my mind are staggering. 'something used by old people to appear intelligent.' You've got to be kidding me. |
|
|
Unfortunately, it seems that you have understood me incorrectly. Perhaps I should clarify what I meant:
'hwat' was traditionally the proper pronunciation of 'what' and was preferred by educated people. Uneducated people pronounced it 'wat' because that was what the orthography indicated. So, 'hwat' came to be associated with the educated. If one wanted to appear educated (whether or not they were educated is irrelevant), they could have used that pronunciation. Over time, I've noticed that, even among educated people, the 'wat' version is becoming more common and 'hwat' is dying out. 'hwat' is still used when someone wants to appear educated and smart, and so it is gaining that connotation of snobbishness (I know many people who regard those who say 'hwat' as snobs, though I don't hold this opinion). As such, eventually 'wat' will become standard usage, 'hwat' will die out even among educated people, and so only old educated (or wanting to appear aducated) people will use it.
I did not mean to say that it was used only in that matter and I certainly didn't mean to say it as an attack on those who prefer the 'hw' pronunciation. I was describing what I think will happen in the future, not what is happening right now. I know that the 'hwat' pronunciation is still kicking (mainly among educated people, though it doesn't apply to all educated people, and some certain fellows who think that it makes them sound intelligent) and I didn't mean to denigrate it. |
|
|
This is a dignified reply and I appreciate it! Thanks, sorry if I was a bit upset.
You're exactly right in a few places. 'What' may very well be dying out but I don't think its use should be laughed at. After all, it's my opinion that good education in general is dying out.
Also, phonologically, 'what' is supposed to be pronounced 'what' not 'wat.' That's what I've been trying to say all this time. The 'h' is not silent, it's a distinguishable sound.
1 person has voted this message useful
| Jar-ptitsa
Triglot
Senior Member
Belgium
Joined 5898 days ago
980 posts - 1006 votes
Speaks: French*, Dutch, German
| Message 74 of 110 31 May 2009 at 8:27pm | IP Logged |
Rout wrote:
Jar-ptitsa wrote:
rout, for a consequent position, I think you better unmerge this also:
1) to - too - two
you can say two like this: "towoo", to with a short vowel and too with a long vowel
2) "Thought":
you have to say it "thoucht" with the "ch" like Dutch because in Dutch thought is "dacht" therefore the English "gh" wasn't silent in the history.
3) Laughed"
has to be "laucht" because the same than number 2.
4) Their - there - they're
have to be unmerged, you have to say "thery" - "ther" - "theyire"
|
|
|
Don't be a fool. Those are homophones. 'wet'-'whet,' &c. are not. |
|
|
I made a joke, but not completely and I'm not be a fool: for many of the English-speakers, wet-whet ARE homophones. The words laughed / thought hadn't the silent "gh" or 'f" but were "ch", therefore with your logic, you must pronounce this words with "ch".
What's your opinion of this ones:
yoke - yolk
wen - when
thyme - time
rote - wrote
knight (-s) - night (-s)
ate - eight
not - knot
probably in the history those were not, but now they are homophones. languages change, and anyway are diverse. there exist different dialects. Your opinion that only one version (the "educated" one in your opinion) is correct is wrong. Every language has a standard and other dialects, but it seems the unaspirated version is standard.
Rout, you're wrong. You're like a parisien who thinks that only his version is the correct one LOL!!!
Edited by Jar-ptitsa on 31 May 2009 at 8:27pm
1 person has voted this message useful
| Rout
Diglot
Senior Member
United States
Joined 5712 days ago
326 posts - 417 votes
Speaks: English*, German
Studies: Spanish
Studies: Hindi
| Message 75 of 110 31 May 2009 at 8:58pm | IP Logged |
zerothinking wrote:
Rout wrote:
Earle wrote:
I don't believe "twice" can be said without voicing.
IOW, the same "W" in "wet" and "twice." What Moultrie is referring to is usually
called "aspiration," since it does involve a "puff of air" as the "w" is
produced... |
|
|
I think the question was about the 'wh' sound, not a 'w' sound. They're two completely
different phonemes.
I am going to get attacked and ridiculed for this but..
The CORRECT pronunciation of 'wh' is with aspirition. What = "HWUT" - READ AN OLDER
DICTIONARY. This is why I have no respect for Webster's and the like. It is a sad
thing what is happening to my language. I hear people say "I hate when people say
'hwut' instead of 'wat.' They sound old." That's because that's the way it was
pronounced for hundreds of years! That said..
Either pronunciation is acceptable in modern America. I prefer the aspirated version
because, as I've said, it was correct for hundreds of years and I refuse to clip and
mangle the English language. =)
If you don't believe me you could take a census but I've had some pretty
lengthy discussions on this..
Older in people in general = aspirated
Younger people in general = unaspirated
That's why you get text messages with "wut" and "wat" *shudders*
Hope that helps (didn't mean to offend anyone). |
|
|
I bet older speakers of Old English complained when their children started to drop
gender from their language. I bet older speakers of vulgar Latin scorned their
children for dropping cases here and there. You know, without such things languages
would never change and that'd be horrible. You wouldn't have your precious English or
even French, Spanish or Italian. What a shame that would be if languages didn't
change. I personally embrace change. Oh, and no one is mangling your English. No child
has ever set out to speak 'incorrectly'. They are simply born into the altered English
and that's what is normal for them. I think this occurs because a language is
essentially 'copied' naturally from the minds of the natives into the minds of the
children. This natural process cannot be without the occasional mistake such as when
'th' becomes encoded as 'f' which in most areas is a speech impediment and in other is
a part of the local dialect! These mistakes are, dare I say, the fantastic driving
force behind language evolution. They have given us French instead of Latin and
Russian instead of Old Church Slavonic.
This reminds me so much of DNA. DNA is copied by the body over and over again but
sometimes it is copied wrong. That is to say it makes a mistake. It's eye-opening to
note that these mistakes are the mutations that lead to evolution by natural
selection. That's because in our western culture so often people despise mistakes.
Without mistakes there would be no evolution at all because there would be no
mutations and there would probably only be proto-cells floating around in the ocean
forever. Indeed, without mistakes we would not learn. Where people see failure I see
opportunity.
Such a shame. You seem so bitter about something that I find to be quite fascinating
and dare I say beautiful.
|
|
|
I said present a good argument...
As I've said, it's utter folly for you to think we should introduce 'irregardless' or 'conversate' into our language. Why should we cover our language with such a disgraceful thatch erring resonance.
I mentioned before that English is more the convergence of multiple languages than a mutation of an older one. It's more analogous to the real definition of natural selection than yours. Different strains won out and proved to be dominant, e.g. Chaucer's London Middle English in comparison to other strains of Middle English. In a scientific respect, some mistakes are beneficial but millions of them are not. My argument is that this is not a beneficial mutation.
All older languages used more complex grammar. They became more simplified, not because of children using them wrong, but because of children learning them wrong and foreigners learning them wrong. How is that a beautiful thing? What gave you the idea that I'd rather everyone speak English than everyone speak Latin? If your assertion is correct then surely the English language is soon change into the drumming of a few tonal grunts. My remonstrances are every bit a dispute to improper language usage as they are to the dummying down of education in general as a means to hit the lowest common denominator.
English has one of the largest, variegated, and colorful vocabularies of any language. Loanwords are a wonderful 'mutation' of a language. Natural selection in humans doesn't exist anymore. Perhaps that's why languages are rapidly deteriorating.
Edited by Rout on 31 May 2009 at 9:04pm
1 person has voted this message useful
| Rout
Diglot
Senior Member
United States
Joined 5712 days ago
326 posts - 417 votes
Speaks: English*, German
Studies: Spanish
Studies: Hindi
| Message 76 of 110 31 May 2009 at 8:59pm | IP Logged |
Jar-ptitsa wrote:
Rout wrote:
Jar-ptitsa wrote:
rout, for a consequent position, I think you better unmerge this also:
1) to - too - two
you can say two like this: "towoo", to with a short vowel and too with a long vowel
2) "Thought":
you have to say it "thoucht" with the "ch" like Dutch because in Dutch thought is "dacht" therefore the English "gh" wasn't silent in the history.
3) Laughed"
has to be "laucht" because the same than number 2.
4) Their - there - they're
have to be unmerged, you have to say "thery" - "ther" - "theyire"
|
|
|
Don't be a fool. Those are homophones. 'wet'-'whet,' &c. are not. |
|
|
I made a joke, but not completely and I'm not be a fool: for many of the English-speakers, wet-whet ARE homophones. The words laughed / thought hadn't the silent "gh" or 'f" but were "ch", therefore with your logic, you must pronounce this words with "ch".
What's your opinion of this ones:
yoke - yolk
wen - when
thyme - time
rote - wrote
knight (-s) - night (-s)
ate - eight
not - knot
probably in the history those were not, but now they are homophones. languages change, and anyway are diverse. there exist different dialects. Your opinion that only one version (the "educated" one in your opinion) is correct is wrong. Every language has a standard and other dialects, but it seems the unaspirated version is standard.
Rout, you're wrong. You're like a parisien who thinks that only his version is the correct one LOL!!! |
|
|
I'll take your argument more seriously when you learn English to an unoffensive level. I'm arguing for strict standards in a literary language. A language has to have strict rules or it's unteachable. Maybe that's what's furthering our education dilemma.
Edited by Rout on 31 May 2009 at 9:03pm
1 person has voted this message useful
| Jar-ptitsa
Triglot
Senior Member
Belgium
Joined 5898 days ago
980 posts - 1006 votes
Speaks: French*, Dutch, German
| Message 77 of 110 31 May 2009 at 9:44pm | IP Logged |
Rout wrote:
I'll take your argument more seriously when you learn English to an unoffensive level. I'm arguing for strict standards in a literary language. A language has to have strict rules or it's unteachable. Maybe that's what's furthering our education dilemma. |
|
|
What I wrote in English which is offensive? please tell me and make the corrections, I'd appreciate it.
Languages can have some rules, like the guidelines, but always there are some exceptions. Which languages can you speak? didn't you discover that the languages aren't like this, I mean it's not possible to know a language only from some rules?
For example, you give English those strict rules, but those are RP or general American or Australian or New zealand? If you want strict rules for teaching, you better chose, for example, mathematics. what's your education dilemma?
1 person has voted this message useful
| Rout
Diglot
Senior Member
United States
Joined 5712 days ago
326 posts - 417 votes
Speaks: English*, German
Studies: Spanish
Studies: Hindi
| Message 78 of 110 31 May 2009 at 10:23pm | IP Logged |
Jar-ptitsa wrote:
Rout wrote:
I'll take your argument more seriously when you learn English to an unoffensive level. I'm arguing for strict standards in a literary language. A language has to have strict rules or it's unteachable. Maybe that's what's furthering our education dilemma. |
|
|
What I wrote in English which is offensive? please tell me and make the corrections, I'd appreciate it.
Languages can have some rules, like the guidelines, but always there are some exceptions. Which languages can you speak? didn't you discover that the languages aren't like this, I mean it's not possible to know a language only from some rules?
For example, you give English those strict rules, but those are RP or general American or Australian or New zealand? If you want strict rules for teaching, you better chose, for example, mathematics. what's your education dilemma? |
|
|
This isn't lang-8 but okay...
1. 'please' should be capitalized.
2. I think you meant.. 'The rules of languages are like guidelines, but there are always exceptions.'
3. I would say 'which' is asking to choose out of a determined set of objects. 'What languages do you speak?' sounds better.
4. 'didn't you discover that the languages aren't like this, I mean it's not possible to know a language only from some rules?' I have know idea what you're trying to say in the third sentence and no capital.
5. 'For example, you give English those strict rules, but those are RP or general American or Australian or New zealand?' It should be 'but ARE THOSE' - invert the object and verb when asking a question.
6. 'If you want strict rules for teaching, you better chose, for example, mathematics.'
I think you're trying to convey this poor argument: 'If you want to teach strict rules in a subject then you'd be better off sticking to mathematics.'
7. 'what's your education dilemma?' - I have no idea what you're trying to ask me. I said America in general is in a dilemma, not myself.
I've seen your posts and I congratulate you; your English is getting better and is better than ANY of my second languages, so please don't be offended. I guess I can't understand why you're commenting if you don't yet speak English fluently.
This is not a question of grammar. Rules connote exceptions but this is not a question of exceptions to a rule. This IS a rule. 'wh' is a distinct phoneme.
1 person has voted this message useful
| Marc Frisch
Heptaglot
Senior Member
Germany
Joined 6665 days ago
1001 posts - 1169 votes
Speaks: German*, French, English, Spanish, Portuguese, Turkish, Italian
Studies: Persian, Tamil
| Message 79 of 110 31 May 2009 at 10:50pm | IP Logged |
Rout wrote:
| I'll take your argument more seriously when you learn English to an unoffensive level. |
|
|
You are trying to avoid a very valid argument. Why not make the distinction between "knight" and "night"? The 'k' used to be pronounced and at some point in history they merged to homophones.
The only reason you are defending the w - wh distinction is that you're emotionally attached to it (as opposed to "knight" and "night", which you've always known as homophones). Not that there's anything wrong about being attached to one's way of speaking, but please don't claim that your stance is logical.
PS: Your arrogance is far more offensive than the alleged lack of English skills in the other posts - and quite unwarranted from someone who writes "recieved" and "your's".
Rout wrote:
You sound like you recieved debate tips of Kent Hovind. [...] I believe mine is most logical. Your's has no logic.
|
|
|
1 person has voted this message useful
| Rout
Diglot
Senior Member
United States
Joined 5712 days ago
326 posts - 417 votes
Speaks: English*, German
Studies: Spanish
Studies: Hindi
| Message 80 of 110 31 May 2009 at 11:35pm | IP Logged |
Marc Frisch wrote:
Rout wrote:
| I'll take your argument more seriously when you learn English to an unoffensive level. |
|
|
You are trying to avoid a very valid argument. Why not make the distinction between "knight" and "night"? The 'k' used to be pronounced and at some point in history they merged to homophones.
The only reason you are defending the w - wh distinction is that you're emotionally attached to it (as opposed to "knight" and "night", which you've always known as homophones). Not that there's anything wrong about being attached to one's way of speaking, but please don't claim that your stance is logical.
PS: Your arrogance is far more offensive than the alleged lack of English skills in the other posts - and quite unwarranted from someone who writes "recieved" and "your's".
Rout wrote:
You sound like you recieved debate tips of Kent Hovind. [...] I believe mine is most logical. Your's has no logic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Funny you should quote the sentence containing Kent Hovind's name. If you'll peruse my posts, which you undoubtedly have in order to back your argumentum ad hominem, you will find that I also use both examples correctly and that these are simple typos. Trust me I know English, but thank you, Herr Redakteur, for so graciously pointing them out. Again, this isn't about debate etiquette, but I did respond to the argument.
Your statement has more to do with the subject than anyone else has presented heretofore. Why not make the distinction between "knight" and "night"? - Well, this is a strict rule. The 'wh' phoneme should have a strict rule - this is my argument. How can you teach something that doesn't have rules? Don't condemn me for attempting to streamline my language.
If you're truly interested in the issue then I urge you to read my posts on the subject once more, not just looking for spelling mistakes.
1 person has voted this message useful
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum - You cannot reply to topics in this forum - You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum - You cannot create polls in this forum - You cannot vote in polls in this forum
This page was generated in 1.2969 seconds.
DHTML Menu By Milonic JavaScript
|
Language Learning Forum : Specific Languages
Printable version
