Bizarre change from US English to UK English

Post by Paul
Surely, he was "skeptical" rather than "sceptical".
What on earth is the justification for changing the written text?

LRB's house style apparently says to use the latter spelling, and
their editors do not consider this to be "changing the written text".
It's the same word. They probably change "color" to "colour" too.

-GAWollman

--
Garrett A. Wollman | "Act to avoid constraining the future; if you can,
***@bimajority.org| act to remove constraint from the future. This is
Opinions not shared by| a thing you can do, are able to do, to do together."
my employers. | - Graydon Saunders, _A Succession of Bad Days_ (2015)

Steve Hayes

2018-02-22 03:36:54 UTC

Post by Paul
Surely, he was "skeptical" rather than "sceptical".
What on earth is the justification for changing the written text?

LRB's house style apparently says to use the latter spelling, and their
editors do not consider this to be "changing the written text".
It's the same word. They probably change "color" to "colour" too.

In most house styles it's a no-no in quotations.

It's probably because no one does much proofreading any more.

I recently read a kids' book set in California, but it had a UK
publisher, so was translated into BrE, and I found it distracting -- I
don't think American kids refer to their mother as "Mum". And Harry
Potter was the other way round.

--
Steve Hayes http://khanya.wordpress.com

Ken Blake

2018-02-22 19:45:54 UTC

On Thu, 22 Feb 2018 03:36:54 -0000 (UTC), Steve Hayes

Post by Steve Hayes
I recently read a kids' book set in California, but it had a UK
publisher, so was translated into BrE, and I found it distracting -- I
don't think American kids refer to their mother as "Mum"

Right. I've never said "Mum," or heard anyone else in the US do so.
Young children usually say "Mommy," and then switch to "Mom" when they
get older, sometimes using "Mom" even after they become adults.

Athel Cornish-Bowden

2018-02-23 15:37:01 UTC

Post by Ken Blake
On Thu, 22 Feb 2018 03:36:54 -0000 (UTC), Steve Hayes

It's worth noting that the way American speakers say "Mom(my)" is much
closer to how "Mum(my)" sounds when spoken by a British English speaker
than "Mom(my)" would sound if it were a British English term.

--
athel

Paul Carmichael

2018-02-23 15:53:46 UTC

It's worth noting that the way American speakers say "Mom(my)" is much closer to how
"Mum(my)" sounds when spoken by a British English speaker than "Mom(my)" would sound if it
were a British English term.

What Americans say sounds more like "marmy" to me.

--
Paul.

https://paulc.es/
https://asetrad.org

Ken Blake

2018-02-23 19:11:17 UTC

On Fri, 23 Feb 2018 16:53:46 +0100, Paul Carmichael

It's worth noting that the way American speakers say "Mom(my)" is much closer to how
"Mum(my)" sounds when spoken by a British English speaker than "Mom(my)" would sound if it
were a British English term.

What Americans say sounds more like "marmy" to me.

Maybe some Americans, but I've never heard anyone say anything close
to that.

Tony Cooper

2018-02-23 19:14:20 UTC

Post by Ken Blake
On Fri, 23 Feb 2018 16:53:46 +0100, Paul Carmichael

It's worth noting that the way American speakers say "Mom(my)" is much closer to how
"Mum(my)" sounds when spoken by a British English speaker than "Mom(my)" would sound if it
were a British English term.

What Americans say sounds more like "marmy" to me.

Maybe some Americans, but I've never heard anyone say anything close
to that.

Nor have I. He's hearing an "r" in there that I've never heard in any
American's pronunciation.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

Athel Cornish-Bowden

2018-02-23 19:29:19 UTC

Post by Ken Blake
On Fri, 23 Feb 2018 16:53:46 +0100, Paul Carmichael

It's worth noting that the way American speakers say "Mom(my)" is much closer to how
"Mum(my)" sounds when spoken by a British English speaker than
"Mom(my)" would sound if it
were a British English term.

What Americans say sounds more like "marmy" to me.

Maybe some Americans, but I've never heard anyone say anything close
to that.

Nor have I. He's hearing an "r" in there that I've never heard in any
American's pronunciation.

No. He's not hearing what you would call an r. He's hearing what he and
I would call an r.

--
athel

Peter T. Daniels

2018-02-23 20:06:25 UTC

Post by Ken Blake
On Fri, 23 Feb 2018 16:53:46 +0100, Paul Carmichael

It's worth noting that the way American speakers say "Mom(my)" is much closer to how
"Mum(my)" sounds when spoken by a British English speaker than "Mom(my)" would sound if it
were a British English term.

What Americans say sounds more like "marmy" to me.

Maybe some Americans, but I've never heard anyone say anything close
to that.

Nor have I. He's hearing an "r" in there that I've never heard in any
American's pronunciation.

After all your decades in AUE, and your thousands of hours of British television
costume dramas, you don't understand what they mean when they insert an "r"
into a word? (Ken Blake's ignorance is excusable on the grounds of general
naivety.)

Paul's "marmy" is EXACTLY the same sound as AmE "mommy." As would be perfectly
clear if both of you would learn to use phonetic notation, goddammit.

It escapes me why they like to spell it "mum(my)."

Paul Wolff

2018-02-23 22:12:55 UTC

Post by Ken Blake
On Fri, 23 Feb 2018 16:53:46 +0100, Paul Carmichael

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
It's worth noting that the way American speakers say "Mom(my)" is
much closer to how
"Mum(my)" sounds when spoken by a British English speaker than
"Mom(my)" would sound if it
were a British English term.

What Americans say sounds more like "marmy" to me.

Maybe some Americans, but I've never heard anyone say anything close
to that.

Nor have I. He's hearing an "r" in there that I've never heard in any
American's pronunciation.

After all your decades in AUE, and your thousands of hours of British television
costume dramas, you don't understand what they mean when they insert an "r"
into a word? (Ken Blake's ignorance is excusable on the grounds of general
naivety.)
Paul's "marmy" is EXACTLY the same sound as AmE "mommy." As would be perfectly
clear if both of you would learn to use phonetic notation, goddammit.
It escapes me why they like to spell it "mum(my)."

If you came over here and listened to children speaking to their
mummies, you'd hear why. And especially if you heard the two-syllable
"Mu-um" that precedes a confession for which absolution is going to be
sought.

Now I'm wondering how G.H. Mumm & Cie pronounce their champagne. Why,
"Excellent!" of course.

--
Paul (a different one)

Peter T. Daniels

2018-02-24 04:29:37 UTC

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Paul's "marmy" is EXACTLY the same sound as AmE "mommy." As would be perfectly
clear if both of you would learn to use phonetic notation, goddammit.
It escapes me why they like to spell it "mum(my)."

Can vowel quality actually be distinguished during caterwauling?

Post by Paul Wolff
Now I'm wondering how G.H. Mumm & Cie pronounce their champagne. Why,
"Excellent!" of course.

Peter Moylan

2018-02-25 01:10:33 UTC

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Paul's "marmy" is EXACTLY the same sound as AmE "mommy." As would
be perfectly clear if both of you would learn to use phonetic
notation, goddammit.
It escapes me why they like to spell it "mum(my)."

For those who want the phonetic notation (ASCII IPA in this case):

AmE "mommy" is [mAmi]
BrE "mummy" is [mVmi]

Similar but not identical vowels.

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia

Ross

2018-02-24 03:08:44 UTC

Post by Ken Blake
On Fri, 23 Feb 2018 16:53:46 +0100, Paul Carmichael

It's worth noting that the way American speakers say "Mom(my)" is much closer to how
"Mum(my)" sounds when spoken by a British English speaker than "Mom(my)" would sound if it
were a British English term.

What Americans say sounds more like "marmy" to me.

Maybe some Americans, but I've never heard anyone say anything close
to that.

Nor have I. He's hearing an "r" in there that I've never heard in any
American's pronunciation.

After all your decades in AUE, and your thousands of hours of British television
costume dramas, you don't understand what they mean when they insert an "r"
into a word? (Ken Blake's ignorance is excusable on the grounds of general
naivety.)
Paul's "marmy" is EXACTLY the same sound as AmE "mommy." As would be perfectly
clear if both of you would learn to use phonetic notation, goddammit.
It escapes me why they like to spell it "mum(my)."

Because what BrE speakers say is not "marmy". They use a short
vowel of very similar quality. "Mummy" rhymes with "dummy", not with
"army".

Peter T. Daniels

2018-02-24 12:59:30 UTC

Post by Ross

Because what BrE speakers say is not "marmy". They use a short
vowel of very similar quality. "Mummy" rhymes with "dummy", not with
"army".

Not in the representations of English children's speech that I've seen on television.

Ken Blake

2018-02-24 19:17:37 UTC

Post by Ross

Post by Peter T. Daniels
It escapes me why they like to spell it "mum(my)."

Because what BrE speakers say is not "marmy". They use a short
vowel of very similar quality. "Mummy" rhymes with "dummy", not with
"army".

And what most AmE speakers say is "mommy," which rhymes with "commie"
and "Tommy."

Richard Tobin

2018-02-24 19:47:26 UTC

Post by Ross
Because what BrE speakers say is not "marmy". They use a short
vowel of very similar quality. "Mummy" rhymes with "dummy", not with
"army".

And what most AmE speakers say is "mommy," which rhymes with "commie"
and "Tommy."

It rhymes with how Americans say "commie" and "Tommy", which often
sounds to (non-rhotic) British speakers like how they would say
"carmmie" and "Tarmmy". It doesn't rhyme with how British speakers
say "commie" and "Tommy".

-- Richard

Ken Blake

2018-02-24 20:15:57 UTC

Post by Ross
Because what BrE speakers say is not "marmy". They use a short
vowel of very similar quality. "Mummy" rhymes with "dummy", not with
"army".

And what most AmE speakers say is "mommy," which rhymes with "commie"
and "Tommy."

OK, that's what I meant and thought was clear, but if it wasn't clear,
thanks for clarifying it.

Dingbat

2018-02-25 13:33:55 UTC

Post by Ross

Post by Ken Blake
On Fri, 23 Feb 2018 16:53:46 +0100, Paul Carmichael

It's worth noting that the way American speakers say "Mom(my)" is much closer to how
"Mum(my)" sounds when spoken by a British English speaker than "Mom(my)" would sound if it
were a British English term.

What Americans say sounds more like "marmy" to me.

Maybe some Americans, but I've never heard anyone say anything close
to that.

Nor have I. He's hearing an "r" in there that I've never heard in any
American's pronunciation.

After all your decades in AUE, and your thousands of hours of British television
costume dramas, you don't understand what they mean when they insert an "r"
into a word? (Ken Blake's ignorance is excusable on the grounds of general
naivety.)
Paul's "marmy" is EXACTLY the same sound as AmE "mommy." As would be perfectly
clear if both of you would learn to use phonetic notation, goddammit.
It escapes me why they like to spell it "mum(my)."

Because what BrE speakers say is not "marmy". They use a short
vowel of very similar quality.

Mum's the word:-)

Post by Ross
"Mummy" rhymes with "dummy", not with
"army".

Richard Tobin

2018-02-24 10:39:28 UTC

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Paul's "marmy" is EXACTLY the same sound as AmE "mommy." As would be
perfectly clear if both of you would learn to use phonetic notation,
goddammit.
It escapes me why they like to spell it "mum(my)."

For the same reason you spell the word for preserved Egyptian
corpses that way.

-- Richard

Peter T. Daniels

2018-02-24 13:00:48 UTC

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Paul's "marmy" is EXACTLY the same sound as AmE "mommy." As would be
perfectly clear if both of you would learn to use phonetic notation,
goddammit.
It escapes me why they like to spell it "mum(my)."

For the same reason you spell the word for preserved Egyptian
corpses that way.

I've never encountered an Englishperson saying the two words the same.

Madrigal Gurneyhalt

2018-02-24 13:10:55 UTC

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Paul's "marmy" is EXACTLY the same sound as AmE "mommy." As would be
perfectly clear if both of you would learn to use phonetic notation,
goddammit.
It escapes me why they like to spell it "mum(my)."

For the same reason you spell the word for preserved Egyptian
corpses that way.

I've never encountered an Englishperson saying the two words the same.

Then you've not encountered many Englishpersons. The fact that they
are pronounced the same is the rock on which a thousand jokes are
built.

What did the egyptologist say when he fell over and cut his knee?

I want my mummy!

Peter T. Daniels

2018-02-24 13:32:55 UTC

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Paul's "marmy" is EXACTLY the same sound as AmE "mommy." As would be
perfectly clear if both of you would learn to use phonetic notation,
goddammit.
It escapes me why they like to spell it "mum(my)."

For the same reason you spell the word for preserved Egyptian
corpses that way.

I've never encountered an Englishperson saying the two words the same.

Then you've not encountered many Englishpersons. The fact that they
are pronounced the same is the rock on which a thousand jokes are
built.
What did the egyptologist say when he fell over and cut his knee?
I want my mummy!

I'll ask John Baines whether he's ever said that.

Katy Jennison

2018-02-24 13:27:30 UTC

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Paul's "marmy" is EXACTLY the same sound as AmE "mommy." As would be
perfectly clear if both of you would learn to use phonetic notation,
goddammit.
It escapes me why they like to spell it "mum(my)."

For the same reason you spell the word for preserved Egyptian
corpses that way.

I've never encountered an Englishperson saying the two words the same.

I'm now speculating about possible contexts in which any Englishperson
you've met might actually say both words.

--
Katy Jennison

Peter T. Daniels

2018-02-24 13:58:13 UTC

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Paul's "marmy" is EXACTLY the same sound as AmE "mommy." As would be
perfectly clear if both of you would learn to use phonetic notation,
goddammit.
It escapes me why they like to spell it "mum(my)."

For the same reason you spell the word for preserved Egyptian
corpses that way.

I've never encountered an Englishperson saying the two words the same.

I'm now speculating about possible contexts in which any Englishperson
you've met might actually say both words.

My whole career I've been going among Egyptologists, remember? (They were down
on the Second Floor while I was on the Third Floor with the Assyriologists, but
still, we did socialize.) Since leaving Chicago I've still been going to mixed
ANE events. [Ancient Near East]

Tony Cooper

2018-02-24 14:20:31 UTC

On Sat, 24 Feb 2018 13:27:30 +0000, Katy Jennison

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Paul's "marmy" is EXACTLY the same sound as AmE "mommy." As would be
perfectly clear if both of you would learn to use phonetic notation,
goddammit.
It escapes me why they like to spell it "mum(my)."

For the same reason you spell the word for preserved Egyptian
corpses that way.

I've never encountered an Englishperson saying the two words the same.

I'm now speculating about possible contexts in which any Englishperson
you've met might actually say both words.

That television show that he claims to have been on may have been
co-directed by two Englishmen.

One said "Did your mummy pick out that shirt and tie combination?"

And the other said "Oi! A mummy wouldn't be caught dead in that
'orrible combo!"

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

Athel Cornish-Bowden

2018-02-24 14:51:25 UTC

Post by Tony Cooper
On Sat, 24 Feb 2018 13:27:30 +0000, Katy Jennison

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Paul's "marmy" is EXACTLY the same sound as AmE "mommy." As would be
perfectly clear if both of you would learn to use phonetic notation,
goddammit.
It escapes me why they like to spell it "mum(my)."

For the same reason you spell the word for preserved Egyptian
corpses that way.

I've never encountered an Englishperson saying the two words the same.

I'm now speculating about possible contexts in which any Englishperson
you've met might actually say both words.

That television show that he claims to have been on may have been
co-directed by two Englishmen.
One said "Did your mummy pick out that shirt and tie combination?"
And the other said "Oi! A mummy wouldn't be caught dead in that
'orrible combo!"

For me both instances are pronounced identically.

--
athel

Lewis

2018-02-24 21:41:07 UTC

Post by Tony Cooper
On Sat, 24 Feb 2018 13:27:30 +0000, Katy Jennison

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Paul's "marmy" is EXACTLY the same sound as AmE "mommy." As would be
perfectly clear if both of you would learn to use phonetic notation,
goddammit.
It escapes me why they like to spell it "mum(my)."

For the same reason you spell the word for preserved Egyptian
corpses that way.

I've never encountered an Englishperson saying the two words the same.

I'm now speculating about possible contexts in which any Englishperson
you've met might actually say both words.

That television show that he claims to have been on may have been
co-directed by two Englishmen.
One said "Did your mummy pick out that shirt and tie combination?"
And the other said "Oi! A mummy wouldn't be caught dead in that
'orrible combo!"

For me both instances are pronounced identically.

Sure, I've heard plenty of people say mummy for their mother, but it is
distinct from saying mommy.

--
Mickey and Mallory know the difference between right and wrong; the just
don't give a damn.

Athel Cornish-Bowden

2018-02-25 07:26:58 UTC

Post by Lewis

Post by Tony Cooper
On Sat, 24 Feb 2018 13:27:30 +0000, Katy Jennison

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Paul's "marmy" is EXACTLY the same sound as AmE "mommy." As would be
perfectly clear if both of you would learn to use phonetic notation,
goddammit.
It escapes me why they like to spell it "mum(my)."

For the same reason you spell the word for preserved Egyptian
corpses that way.

I've never encountered an Englishperson saying the two words the same.

I'm now speculating about possible contexts in which any Englishperson
you've met might actually say both words.

That television show that he claims to have been on may have been
co-directed by two Englishmen.
One said "Did your mummy pick out that shirt and tie combination?"
And the other said "Oi! A mummy wouldn't be caught dead in that
'orrible combo!"

For me both instances are pronounced identically.

Sure, I've heard plenty of people say mummy for their mother, but it is
distinct from saying mommy.

I didn't say otherwise (not there,anyway). I said that "mmummy" was the
same, whether for one's mother, or for an embalmed body.

--
athel

Ken Blake

2018-02-24 19:21:51 UTC

On Sat, 24 Feb 2018 13:27:30 +0000, Katy Jennison

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Paul's "marmy" is EXACTLY the same sound as AmE "mommy." As would be
perfectly clear if both of you would learn to use phonetic notation,
goddammit.
It escapes me why they like to spell it "mum(my)."

For the same reason you spell the word for preserved Egyptian
corpses that way.

I've never encountered an Englishperson saying the two words the same.

I'm now speculating about possible contexts in which any Englishperson
you've met might actually say both words.

My Mummy and I saw a mummy in the museum.

CDB

2018-02-24 19:53:01 UTC

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Paul's "marmy" is EXACTLY the same sound as AmE "mommy." As
would be perfectly clear if both of you would learn to use
phonetic notation, goddammit.
It escapes me why they like to spell it "mum(my)."

For the same reason you spell the word for preserved Egyptian
corpses that way.

I've never encountered an Englishperson saying the two words the same.

I'm now speculating about possible contexts in which any
Englishperson you've met might actually say both words.

One year there was a brief fad amongst the adults in our neighbourhood
for making life-masks. I managed to set my father's back a few steps
when I waited until the clay was in place and straws the only doors of
breath, and told him the joke about signs in the pyramid.

No disturbing the Mummies
Or the Daddies

I was asked to leave, but I didn't care.

Janet

2018-02-24 23:15:57 UTC

In article <p6rp80$ug6$***@news.albasani.net>, ***@spamtrap.kjennison.com
says...

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Paul's "marmy" is EXACTLY the same sound as AmE "mommy." As would be
perfectly clear if both of you would learn to use phonetic notation,
goddammit.
It escapes me why they like to spell it "mum(my)."

For the same reason you spell the word for preserved Egyptian
corpses that way.

I've never encountered an Englishperson saying the two words the same.

I've never encountered one who didn't say them the same.

Janet.

Jerry Friedman

2018-02-25 01:23:43 UTC

[if there came wet, wet, wet to make it all of a mummy]

Post by Peter T. Daniels
I've never encountered an Englishperson saying the two words the same.

I'm now speculating about possible contexts in which any Englishperson
you've met might actually say both words.

A sufficiently young Englishperson might say them in the same sentence.
"Mummy, Jack won't let me watch the one about the mummy!" But I doubt
PTD has much experience of Englishchildren.

--
Jerry Friedman

Richard Tobin

2018-02-24 13:34:11 UTC

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Paul's "marmy" is EXACTLY the same sound as AmE "mommy." As would be
perfectly clear if both of you would learn to use phonetic notation,
goddammit.
It escapes me why they like to spell it "mum(my)."

For the same reason you spell the word for preserved Egyptian
corpses that way.

I've never encountered an Englishperson saying the two words the same.

How odd.

-- Richard

CDB

2018-02-24 08:16:53 UTC

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
It's worth noting that the way American speakers say "Mom(my)"
is much closer to how "Mum(my)" sounds when spoken by a
British English speaker than "Mom(my)" would sound if it were a
British English term.

What Americans say sounds more like "marmy" to me.

Maybe some Americans, but I've never heard anyone say anything
close to that.

Nor have I. He's hearing an "r" in there that I've never heard in
any American's pronunciation.

I take it as a non-rhotic way of writing what is now a common American
pronunciation of the word as [mAmi], to rhyme with "balmy" or "palmy"
for those who don't say the "l" (or "Commie", as I see Peter TD has
suggested). Perhaps when Alcott wrote "Marmee"
that version was becoming more widespread or perhaps it was a marker of
class or local origin, in contrast with the older "Mammy" [m&mi].

We moved around a lot when I was little, so I said "Mummy" [mVmi] but
spelled it "Mommy".

Ross

2018-02-24 08:28:07 UTC

Post by CDB

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
It's worth noting that the way American speakers say "Mom(my)"
is much closer to how "Mum(my)" sounds when spoken by a
British English speaker than "Mom(my)" would sound if it were a
British English term.

What Americans say sounds more like "marmy" to me.

Maybe some Americans, but I've never heard anyone say anything
close to that.

Nor have I. He's hearing an "r" in there that I've never heard in
any American's pronunciation.

I take it as a non-rhotic way of writing what is now a common American
pronunciation of the word as [mAmi], to rhyme with "balmy" or "palmy"
for those who don't say the "l" (or "Commie", as I see Peter TD has
suggested). Perhaps when Alcott wrote "Marmee"
that version was becoming more widespread or perhaps it was a marker of
class or local origin, in contrast with the older "Mammy" [m&mi].
We moved around a lot when I was little, so I said "Mummy" [mVmi] but
spelled it "Mommy".

That was the Canadian norm when I was growing up. Pronounced [mVm],
spelled <Mom>. The spelling's within the range of English options, if
you consider "come", "some" and (for me) "from".

Ken Blake

2018-02-24 19:19:48 UTC

Post by CDB

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
It's worth noting that the way American speakers say "Mom(my)"
is much closer to how "Mum(my)" sounds when spoken by a
British English speaker than "Mom(my)" would sound if it were a
British English term.

What Americans say sounds more like "marmy" to me.

Maybe some Americans, but I've never heard anyone say anything
close to that.

Nor have I. He's hearing an "r" in there that I've never heard in
any American's pronunciation.

I take it as a non-rhotic way of writing what is now a common American
pronunciation of the word as [mAmi], to rhyme with "balmy" or "palmy"
for those who don't say the "l"

Perhaps some American say that, but I've never heard it.

Post by CDB
(or "Commie",

Yes, as I said in another message moments ago.

Peter T. Daniels

2018-02-24 19:34:57 UTC

Post by CDB

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
It's worth noting that the way American speakers say "Mom(my)"
is much closer to how "Mum(my)" sounds when spoken by a
British English speaker than "Mom(my)" would sound if it were a
British English term.

What Americans say sounds more like "marmy" to me.

Maybe some Americans, but I've never heard anyone say anything
close to that.

Nor have I. He's hearing an "r" in there that I've never heard in
any American's pronunciation.

I take it as a non-rhotic way of writing what is now a common American
pronunciation of the word as [mAmi], to rhyme with "balmy" or "palmy"
for those who don't say the "l"

Perhaps some American say that, but I've never heard it.

Post by CDB
(or "Commie",

Yes, as I said in another message moments ago.

And I said yesterday, of course.

Paul Carmichael

2018-02-24 10:54:45 UTC

Post by Ken Blake
On Fri, 23 Feb 2018 16:53:46 +0100, Paul Carmichael

It's worth noting that the way American speakers say "Mom(my)" is much closer to how
"Mum(my)" sounds when spoken by a British English speaker than "Mom(my)" would sound if it
were a British English term.

What Americans say sounds more like "marmy" to me.

Maybe some Americans, but I've never heard anyone say anything close
to that.

Nor have I. He's hearing an "r" in there that I've never heard in any
American's pronunciation.

I meant non rhotic. As a Brit would say marmy.

--
Paul.

https://paulc.es/
https://asetrad.org

Athel Cornish-Bowden

2018-02-23 19:27:38 UTC

Post by Ken Blake
On Fri, 23 Feb 2018 16:53:46 +0100, Paul Carmichael

It's worth noting that the way American speakers say "Mom(my)" is much closer to how
"Mum(my)" sounds when spoken by a British English speaker than
"Mom(my)" would sound if it
were a British English term.

What Americans say sounds more like "marmy" to me.

Maybe some Americans, but I've never heard anyone say anything close
to that.

Yes, but you're probably rhotic.

--
athel

Ken Blake

2018-02-23 20:12:40 UTC

On Fri, 23 Feb 2018 20:27:38 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Ken Blake
On Fri, 23 Feb 2018 16:53:46 +0100, Paul Carmichael

It's worth noting that the way American speakers say "Mom(my)" is much closer to how
"Mum(my)" sounds when spoken by a British English speaker than
"Mom(my)" would sound if it
were a British English term.

What Americans say sounds more like "marmy" to me.

Maybe some Americans, but I've never heard anyone say anything close
to that.

Yes, but you're probably rhotic.

Since I grew in partly in NYC and partly in Arizona, I'm sort of
"semi-rhotic."

But even if you don't pronounce the R and say something like
"mah-mee," I've never heard anyone say anything like that.

Peter T. Daniels

2018-02-23 20:35:21 UTC

Post by Ken Blake
On Fri, 23 Feb 2018 20:27:38 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Ken Blake
On Fri, 23 Feb 2018 16:53:46 +0100, Paul Carmichael

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
It's worth noting that the way American speakers say "Mom(my)" is much
closer to how
"Mum(my)" sounds when spoken by a British English speaker than
"Mom(my)" would sound if it
were a British English term.

What Americans say sounds more like "marmy" to me.

Maybe some Americans, but I've never heard anyone say anything close
to that.

Yes, but you're probably rhotic.

Since I grew in partly in NYC and partly in Arizona, I'm sort of
"semi-rhotic."
But even if you don't pronounce the R and say something like
"mah-mee," I've never heard anyone say anything like that.

???

That's all there is! <Mommy>. Like "Commie." Shorter than "balmy."

Janet

2018-02-24 11:21:14 UTC

Post by Ken Blake
On Fri, 23 Feb 2018 20:27:38 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Ken Blake
On Fri, 23 Feb 2018 16:53:46 +0100, Paul Carmichael

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
It's worth noting that the way American speakers say "Mom(my)" is much
closer to how
"Mum(my)" sounds when spoken by a British English speaker than
"Mom(my)" would sound if it
were a British English term.

What Americans say sounds more like "marmy" to me.

Maybe some Americans, but I've never heard anyone say anything close
to that.

Yes, but you're probably rhotic.

Since I grew in partly in NYC and partly in Arizona, I'm sort of
"semi-rhotic."
But even if you don't pronounce the R and say something like
"mah-mee," I've never heard anyone say anything like that.

Can someone who pronounces marry merry and Mary with the same vowel,
distinguish Mommy, Marmee, Mammy, Mummy?

Janet

Peter T. Daniels

2018-02-24 13:29:32 UTC

Post by Ken Blake
On Fri, 23 Feb 2018 20:27:38 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Ken Blake
On Fri, 23 Feb 2018 16:53:46 +0100, Paul Carmichael

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
It's worth noting that the way American speakers say "Mom(my)" is much
closer to how
"Mum(my)" sounds when spoken by a British English speaker than
"Mom(my)" would sound if it
were a British English term.

What Americans say sounds more like "marmy" to me.

Maybe some Americans, but I've never heard anyone say anything close
to that.

Yes, but you're probably rhotic.

Since I grew in partly in NYC and partly in Arizona, I'm sort of
"semi-rhotic."
But even if you don't pronounce the R and say something like
"mah-mee," I've never heard anyone say anything like that.

Can someone who pronounces marry merry and Mary with the same vowel,
distinguish Mommy, Marmee, Mammy, Mummy?

Yes, because only one of them is before /r/ -- and the vowel in that one isn't a participant
in the merger. They are respectively /a/ /ar/ /&/ /V/.

David Kleinecke

2018-02-24 18:25:57 UTC

Post by Ken Blake
On Fri, 23 Feb 2018 20:27:38 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Ken Blake
On Fri, 23 Feb 2018 16:53:46 +0100, Paul Carmichael

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
It's worth noting that the way American speakers say "Mom(my)" is much
closer to how
"Mum(my)" sounds when spoken by a British English speaker than
"Mom(my)" would sound if it
were a British English term.

What Americans say sounds more like "marmy" to me.

Maybe some Americans, but I've never heard anyone say anything close
to that.

Yes, but you're probably rhotic.

Since I grew in partly in NYC and partly in Arizona, I'm sort of
"semi-rhotic."
But even if you don't pronounce the R and say something like
"mah-mee," I've never heard anyone say anything like that.

Can someone who pronounces marry merry and Mary with the same vowel,
distinguish Mommy, Marmee, Mammy, Mummy?

Yes. All different.

Athel Cornish-Bowden

2018-02-24 19:34:05 UTC

Post by David Kleinecke

Post by Ken Blake
On Fri, 23 Feb 2018 20:27:38 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Ken Blake
On Fri, 23 Feb 2018 16:53:46 +0100, Paul Carmichael

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
It's worth noting that the way American speakers say "Mom(my)" is much
closer to how
"Mum(my)" sounds when spoken by a British English speaker than
"Mom(my)" would sound if it
were a British English term.

What Americans say sounds more like "marmy" to me.

Maybe some Americans, but I've never heard anyone say anything close
to that.

Yes, but you're probably rhotic.

Since I grew in partly in NYC and partly in Arizona, I'm sort of
"semi-rhotic."
But even if you don't pronounce the R and say something like
"mah-mee," I've never heard anyone say anything like that.

Can someone who pronounces marry merry and Mary with the same vowel,
distinguish Mommy, Marmee, Mammy, Mummy?

Yes. All different.

All different and no possibility of confusion. However, I'm not soleone
who pronounces marry merry and Mary with the same vowel.

--
athel

Lewis

2018-02-24 21:40:07 UTC

Post by Ken Blake
On Fri, 23 Feb 2018 20:27:38 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Ken Blake
On Fri, 23 Feb 2018 16:53:46 +0100, Paul Carmichael

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
It's worth noting that the way American speakers say "Mom(my)" is much
closer to how
"Mum(my)" sounds when spoken by a British English speaker than
"Mom(my)" would sound if it
were a British English term.

What Americans say sounds more like "marmy" to me.

Maybe some Americans, but I've never heard anyone say anything close
to that.

Yes, but you're probably rhotic.

Since I grew in partly in NYC and partly in Arizona, I'm sort of
"semi-rhotic."
But even if you don't pronounce the R and say something like
"mah-mee," I've never heard anyone say anything like that.

Can someone who pronounces marry merry and Mary with the same vowel,
distinguish Mommy, Marmee, Mammy, Mummy?

Yes. Mommy as in father, Marmee I've never heard, but it has an r, Mammy
has a short a like it patty or tabby, and mummy had a u sound like in
sun or son.

Very distinct.

--
Everything that was magical was just a way of describing the world in
words it couldn't ignore.

Peter Duncanson [BrE]

2018-02-23 23:06:50 UTC

On Fri, 23 Feb 2018 20:27:38 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Ken Blake
On Fri, 23 Feb 2018 16:53:46 +0100, Paul Carmichael

It's worth noting that the way American speakers say "Mom(my)" is much closer to how
"Mum(my)" sounds when spoken by a British English speaker than
"Mom(my)" would sound if it
were a British English term.

What Americans say sounds more like "marmy" to me.

Maybe some Americans, but I've never heard anyone say anything close
to that.

Yes, but you're probably rhotic.

Indeed. That use of "ar" frequently causes cross-pondian confusion here.

It represents the sound a non-rhotic speaker would make for "ar". It
could, informally, be described as a voiced-ah sound.

--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

RH Draney

2018-02-24 01:06:20 UTC

Post by Ken Blake
On Fri, 23 Feb 2018 20:27:38 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Ken Blake
On Fri, 23 Feb 2018 16:53:46 +0100, Paul Carmichael

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
It's worth noting that the way American speakers say "Mom(my)" is much
closer to how
"Mum(my)" sounds when spoken by a British English speaker than
"Mom(my)" would sound if it
were a British English term.

What Americans say sounds more like "marmy" to me.

Maybe some Americans, but I've never heard anyone say anything close
to that.

Yes, but you're probably rhotic.

Indeed. That use of "ar" frequently causes cross-pondian confusion here.
It represents the sound a non-rhotic speaker would make for "ar". It
could, informally, be described as a voiced-ah sound.

I think we need an actual audio representation for reference:

....r

Peter T. Daniels

2018-02-24 04:31:15 UTC

Post by Ken Blake
On Fri, 23 Feb 2018 20:27:38 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Ken Blake
On Fri, 23 Feb 2018 16:53:46 +0100, Paul Carmichael

Post by Paul Carmichael
What Americans say sounds more like "marmy" to me.

Maybe some Americans, but I've never heard anyone say anything close
to that.

Yes, but you're probably rhotic.

Indeed. That use of "ar" frequently causes cross-pondian confusion here.
It represents the sound a non-rhotic speaker would make for "ar". It
could, informally, be described as a voiced-ah sound.

As opposed to a voiceless ah-sound??

Japanese "has" "voiceless vowels," which are phonologically real but phonetically
nonexistent.

Peter Duncanson [BrE]

2018-02-24 12:42:49 UTC

On Fri, 23 Feb 2018 20:31:15 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Ken Blake
On Fri, 23 Feb 2018 20:27:38 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Ken Blake
On Fri, 23 Feb 2018 16:53:46 +0100, Paul Carmichael

Post by Paul Carmichael
What Americans say sounds more like "marmy" to me.

Maybe some Americans, but I've never heard anyone say anything close
to that.

Yes, but you're probably rhotic.

Indeed. That use of "ar" frequently causes cross-pondian confusion here.
It represents the sound a non-rhotic speaker would make for "ar". It
could, informally, be described as a voiced-ah sound.

As opposed to a voiceless ah-sound??

No. My mistake. It can also be a voiceless ah-sound.

This includes two BrE pronunciations of "army"
https://forvo.com/word/army/#en

That by dorebora has an unvoiced ah.
In that by stevefitch it is voiced.

Two of the AmE pronunciations also sound, to me, to be r-free, those by
ccerva and jcung.

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Japanese "has" "voiceless vowels," which are phonologically real but phonetically
nonexistent.

--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

Peter T. Daniels

2018-02-24 13:55:44 UTC

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Fri, 23 Feb 2018 20:31:15 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Ken Blake
On Fri, 23 Feb 2018 20:27:38 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Ken Blake
On Fri, 23 Feb 2018 16:53:46 +0100, Paul Carmichael

Post by Paul Carmichael
What Americans say sounds more like "marmy" to me.

Maybe some Americans, but I've never heard anyone say anything close
to that.

Yes, but you're probably rhotic.

Indeed. That use of "ar" frequently causes cross-pondian confusion here.
It represents the sound a non-rhotic speaker would make for "ar". It
could, informally, be described as a voiced-ah sound.

As opposed to a voiceless ah-sound??

No. My mistake. It can also be a voiceless ah-sound.
This includes two BrE pronunciations of "army"
https://forvo.com/word/army/#en
That by dorebora has an unvoiced ah.

It seems you mean by "unvoiced" something other than what phoneticians mean by it.

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
In that by stevefitch it is voiced.
Two of the AmE pronunciations also sound, to me, to be r-free, those by
ccerva and jcung.

The only AmE'er who _might_ be r-less is DickB. Your two have clear r's. DickB, however, sounds
Australian to me -- the other vowels in his sentence are quite odd, Americanwise.

Peter Duncanson [BrE]

2018-02-24 19:46:43 UTC

On Sat, 24 Feb 2018 05:55:44 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Fri, 23 Feb 2018 20:31:15 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Ken Blake
On Fri, 23 Feb 2018 20:27:38 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Ken Blake
On Fri, 23 Feb 2018 16:53:46 +0100, Paul Carmichael

Post by Paul Carmichael
What Americans say sounds more like "marmy" to me.

Maybe some Americans, but I've never heard anyone say anything close
to that.

Yes, but you're probably rhotic.

Indeed. That use of "ar" frequently causes cross-pondian confusion here.
It represents the sound a non-rhotic speaker would make for "ar". It
could, informally, be described as a voiced-ah sound.

As opposed to a voiceless ah-sound??

No. My mistake. It can also be a voiceless ah-sound.
This includes two BrE pronunciations of "army"
https://forvo.com/word/army/#en
That by dorebora has an unvoiced ah.

It seems you mean by "unvoiced" something other than what phoneticians mean by it.

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
In that by stevefitch it is voiced.
Two of the AmE pronunciations also sound, to me, to be r-free, those by
ccerva and jcung.

The only AmE'er who _might_ be r-less is DickB. Your two have clear r's. DickB, however, sounds
Australian to me -- the other vowels in his sentence are quite odd, Americanwise.

Let's see if anyone else gives a personal opinion.

--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

Ross

2018-02-24 20:42:23 UTC

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Sat, 24 Feb 2018 05:55:44 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Fri, 23 Feb 2018 20:31:15 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Ken Blake
On Fri, 23 Feb 2018 20:27:38 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Ken Blake
On Fri, 23 Feb 2018 16:53:46 +0100, Paul Carmichael

Post by Paul Carmichael
What Americans say sounds more like "marmy" to me.

Maybe some Americans, but I've never heard anyone say anything close
to that.

Yes, but you're probably rhotic.

Indeed. That use of "ar" frequently causes cross-pondian confusion here.
It represents the sound a non-rhotic speaker would make for "ar". It
could, informally, be described as a voiced-ah sound.

As opposed to a voiceless ah-sound??

No. My mistake. It can also be a voiceless ah-sound.
This includes two BrE pronunciations of "army"
https://forvo.com/word/army/#en
That by dorebora has an unvoiced ah.

It seems you mean by "unvoiced" something other than what phoneticians mean by it.

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
In that by stevefitch it is voiced.
Two of the AmE pronunciations also sound, to me, to be r-free, those by
ccerva and jcung.

The only AmE'er who _might_ be r-less is DickB. Your two have clear r's. DickB, however, sounds
Australian to me -- the other vowels in his sentence are quite odd, Americanwise.

Let's see if anyone else gives a personal opinion.

You can click on DickB's name and hear him pronounce a lot of other stuff.
He's definitely non-rhotic at least some of the time ("steer", "Gloucester").
He may be from Boston. (Forvo's geographic indicators are pretty vague.)
The other two Americans mentioned have clear /r/'s.

And I don't understand what you (PWD) mean by "(un)voiced".

musika

2018-02-24 22:04:05 UTC

Post by Ross
You can click on DickB's name and hear him pronounce a lot of other stuff.
He's definitely non-rhotic at least some of the time ("steer", "Gloucester").

Interestingly, I hear an "r" at the end of Talladega.

--
Ray
UK

Garrett Wollman

2018-02-24 22:46:28 UTC

Post by Ross
You can click on DickB's name and hear him pronounce a lot of other stuff.
He's definitely non-rhotic at least some of the time ("steer", "Gloucester").

Interestingly, I hear an "r" at the end of Talladega.

The Boston accent is known for "intrusive 'r'".

-GAWollman

musika

2018-02-24 23:13:08 UTC

Post by Ross
You can click on DickB's name and hear him pronounce a lot of other stuff.
He's definitely non-rhotic at least some of the time ("steer", "Gloucester").

Interestingly, I hear an "r" at the end of Talladega.

The Boston accent is known for "intrusive 'r'".

I thought "intrusive 'r'" only appeared between a word that ends in a
vowel and a word that starts with a vowel.

--
Ray
UK

Ross

2018-02-24 23:27:57 UTC

Post by Ross
You can click on DickB's name and hear him pronounce a lot of other stuff.
He's definitely non-rhotic at least some of the time ("steer", "Gloucester").

Interestingly, I hear an "r" at the end of Talladega.

The Boston accent is known for "intrusive 'r'".

I thought "intrusive 'r'" only appeared between a word that ends in a
vowel and a word that starts with a vowel.

Indeed. An "r" at the end of Talladega (without a following vowel)
would have to be a "hypercorrect 'r'", as in JFK's "Cuber".

Ken Blake

2018-02-24 23:45:18 UTC

Post by Ross
You can click on DickB's name and hear him pronounce a lot of other stuff.
He's definitely non-rhotic at least some of the time ("steer", "Gloucester").

Interestingly, I hear an "r" at the end of Talladega.

The Boston accent is known for "intrusive 'r'".

I thought "intrusive 'r'" only appeared between a word that ends in a
vowel and a word that starts with a vowel.

As far as I'm concerned, that's where it's most common, but it's not
the only place I've heard it. For example, I've often heard people
(not people from Boston) saying "I have no idear."

Lewis

2018-02-25 02:53:41 UTC

Post by Ross
You can click on DickB's name and hear him pronounce a lot of other stuff.
He's definitely non-rhotic at least some of the time ("steer", "Gloucester").

Interestingly, I hear an "r" at the end of Talladega.

The Boston accent is known for "intrusive 'r'".

I thought "intrusive 'r'" only appeared between a word that ends in a
vowel and a word that starts with a vowel.

As far as I'm concerned, that's where it's most common, but it's not
the only place I've heard it. For example, I've often heard people
(not people from Boston) saying "I have no idear."

I think of that as an Americanism, but there is a podcaster I listen to
who says it, and he's a Brit.

--
Strange things are afoot at the Circle K

Tony Cooper

2018-02-24 23:56:01 UTC

Post by Ross
You can click on DickB's name and hear him pronounce a lot of other stuff.
He's definitely non-rhotic at least some of the time ("steer", "Gloucester").

Interestingly, I hear an "r" at the end of Talladega.

The Boston accent is known for "intrusive 'r'".

For otherponders who might arrive at the wrong conclusion from this
exchange, the recognizable Talladega in the US is Talladega, Alabama.
Known by anyone who follows NASCAR racing as one of the major NASCAR
(automobile) racetracks in the US. The recognizable Boston is the one
on our east coast noted for beans, tea-dumping, and Brahims.

I went to a race in Talladega once. I had never before seen so many
good-looking tattooed women and belt buckles the size of dinner plates
in one place. The racing was boring...zip, zip, zip around the track
and I couldn't tell who was in the lead.

I wouldn't think Bostonians would be much in evidence in Talladega.

There may be other Talladegas and Bostons.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

Mack A. Damia

2018-02-25 00:11:15 UTC

On Sat, 24 Feb 2018 18:56:01 -0500, Tony Cooper

Post by Ross
You can click on DickB's name and hear him pronounce a lot of other stuff.
He's definitely non-rhotic at least some of the time ("steer", "Gloucester").

Interestingly, I hear an "r" at the end of Talladega.

The Boston accent is known for "intrusive 'r'".

For otherponders who might arrive at the wrong conclusion from this
exchange, the recognizable Talladega in the US is Talladega, Alabama.
Known by anyone who follows NASCAR racing as one of the major NASCAR
(automobile) racetracks in the US. The recognizable Boston is the one
on our east coast noted for beans, tea-dumping, and Brahims.
I went to a race in Talladega once. I had never before seen so many
good-looking tattooed women and belt buckles the size of dinner plates
in one place. The racing was boring...zip, zip, zip around the track
and I couldn't tell who was in the lead.
I wouldn't think Bostonians would be much in evidence in Talladega.
There may be other Talladegas and Bostons.

"Good-looking tattooed women" is an oxymoron unless it is a small
unobtrusive tattoo. Other than that, large sleeve-type, extensive
coverage, or tattoos of skulls and zombies signal masculinity to many
observers, and this follows the current cultural trend of women
demanding equality with men; they strive to become like men and
display it in their names, occupations, recreation, fashion, styles,
tattoos and even vocal fry.

Tony Cooper

2018-02-25 01:09:43 UTC

On Sat, 24 Feb 2018 16:11:15 -0800, Mack A. Damia

Post by Mack A. Damia
On Sat, 24 Feb 2018 18:56:01 -0500, Tony Cooper

Post by Ross
You can click on DickB's name and hear him pronounce a lot of other stuff.
He's definitely non-rhotic at least some of the time ("steer", "Gloucester").

Interestingly, I hear an "r" at the end of Talladega.

The Boston accent is known for "intrusive 'r'".

For otherponders who might arrive at the wrong conclusion from this
exchange, the recognizable Talladega in the US is Talladega, Alabama.
Known by anyone who follows NASCAR racing as one of the major NASCAR
(automobile) racetracks in the US. The recognizable Boston is the one
on our east coast noted for beans, tea-dumping, and Brahims.
I went to a race in Talladega once. I had never before seen so many
good-looking tattooed women and belt buckles the size of dinner plates
in one place. The racing was boring...zip, zip, zip around the track
and I couldn't tell who was in the lead.
I wouldn't think Bostonians would be much in evidence in Talladega.
There may be other Talladegas and Bostons.

"Good-looking tattooed women" is an oxymoron unless it is a small
unobtrusive tattoo.

Generally, I would agree. Not in this case. I know good-looking when
I see it. How they will age is another story.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

Mack A. Damia

2018-02-25 01:28:52 UTC

On Sat, 24 Feb 2018 20:09:43 -0500, Tony Cooper

Post by Tony Cooper
On Sat, 24 Feb 2018 16:11:15 -0800, Mack A. Damia

Post by Mack A. Damia
On Sat, 24 Feb 2018 18:56:01 -0500, Tony Cooper

Post by Ross
You can click on DickB's name and hear him pronounce a lot of other stuff.
He's definitely non-rhotic at least some of the time ("steer", "Gloucester").

Interestingly, I hear an "r" at the end of Talladega.

The Boston accent is known for "intrusive 'r'".

For otherponders who might arrive at the wrong conclusion from this
exchange, the recognizable Talladega in the US is Talladega, Alabama.
Known by anyone who follows NASCAR racing as one of the major NASCAR
(automobile) racetracks in the US. The recognizable Boston is the one
on our east coast noted for beans, tea-dumping, and Brahims.
I went to a race in Talladega once. I had never before seen so many
good-looking tattooed women and belt buckles the size of dinner plates
in one place. The racing was boring...zip, zip, zip around the track
and I couldn't tell who was in the lead.
I wouldn't think Bostonians would be much in evidence in Talladega.
There may be other Talladegas and Bostons.

"Good-looking tattooed women" is an oxymoron unless it is a small
unobtrusive tattoo.

Generally, I would agree. Not in this case. I know good-looking when
I see it. How they will age is another story.

Good-looking or not, it is the mark of an exhibitionist. Why does a
beautiful woman need to cover herself with more-or-less grotesque
images? I don't buy it. There is a defect somewhere, just like the
plastic surgery racket: more is better, or just one more tuck will
do.....

Lewis

2018-02-25 02:58:58 UTC

Post by Tony Cooper
On Sat, 24 Feb 2018 16:11:15 -0800, Mack A. Damia

Post by Mack A. Damia
On Sat, 24 Feb 2018 18:56:01 -0500, Tony Cooper

Post by Ross
You can click on DickB's name and hear him pronounce a lot of other stuff.
He's definitely non-rhotic at least some of the time ("steer", "Gloucester").

Interestingly, I hear an "r" at the end of Talladega.

The Boston accent is known for "intrusive 'r'".

For otherponders who might arrive at the wrong conclusion from this
exchange, the recognizable Talladega in the US is Talladega, Alabama.
Known by anyone who follows NASCAR racing as one of the major NASCAR
(automobile) racetracks in the US. The recognizable Boston is the one
on our east coast noted for beans, tea-dumping, and Brahims.
I went to a race in Talladega once. I had never before seen so many
good-looking tattooed women and belt buckles the size of dinner plates
in one place. The racing was boring...zip, zip, zip around the track
and I couldn't tell who was in the lead.
I wouldn't think Bostonians would be much in evidence in Talladega.
There may be other Talladegas and Bostons.

"Good-looking tattooed women" is an oxymoron unless it is a small
unobtrusive tattoo.

Generally, I would agree. Not in this case. I know good-looking when
I see it. How they will age is another story.

I am not a fan of tattoos. At all. Never have been, never will be. But I
know many women who are extremely attractive and have a LOT of tattoos.

--
Let there be songs to fill the air

Peter Moylan

2018-02-25 01:23:19 UTC

Post by Mack A. Damia
On Sat, 24 Feb 2018 18:56:01 -0500, Tony Cooper

Post by Tony Cooper
I went to a race in Talladega once. I had never before seen so
many good-looking tattooed women and belt buckles the size of
dinner plates in one place. The racing was boring...zip, zip, zip
around the track and I couldn't tell who was in the lead.
I wouldn't think Bostonians would be much in evidence in
Talladega.
There may be other Talladegas and Bostons.

"Good-looking tattooed women" is an oxymoron unless it is a small
unobtrusive tattoo. Other than that, large sleeve-type, extensive
coverage, or tattoos of skulls and zombies signal masculinity to
many observers, and this follows the current cultural trend of women
demanding equality with men; they strive to become like men and
display it in their names, occupations, recreation, fashion,
styles, tattoos and even vocal fry.

As I see it, tattoos on young women is a consequence of the newest form
of feminism. For almost forever, women have been expected to be
physically attractive. The tattoos are an assertion of the woman's right
to be ugly.

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia

Lewis

2018-02-25 03:01:44 UTC

Post by Mack A. Damia
On Sat, 24 Feb 2018 18:56:01 -0500, Tony Cooper

"Good-looking tattooed women" is an oxymoron unless it is a small
unobtrusive tattoo. Other than that, large sleeve-type, extensive
coverage, or tattoos of skulls and zombies signal masculinity to
many observers, and this follows the current cultural trend of women
demanding equality with men; they strive to become like men and
display it in their names, occupations, recreation, fashion,
styles, tattoos and even vocal fry.

That is a ridiculous thing to say, and offensive.

--
Han : You said you wanted to be around when I made a mistake, well, this
could be it, sweetheart. Leia: I take it back.

Peter Duncanson [BrE]

2018-02-25 12:01:45 UTC

On Sun, 25 Feb 2018 12:23:19 +1100, Peter Moylan

Post by Mack A. Damia
On Sat, 24 Feb 2018 18:56:01 -0500, Tony Cooper

"Good-looking tattooed women" is an oxymoron unless it is a small
unobtrusive tattoo. Other than that, large sleeve-type, extensive
coverage, or tattoos of skulls and zombies signal masculinity to
many observers, and this follows the current cultural trend of women
demanding equality with men; they strive to become like men and
display it in their names, occupations, recreation, fashion,
styles, tattoos and even vocal fry.

!!
I like it, regardless of whether it is correct or not.

--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

Madrigal Gurneyhalt

2018-02-25 12:06:53 UTC

Post by Mack A. Damia
On Sat, 24 Feb 2018 18:56:01 -0500, Tony Cooper

"Good-looking tattooed women" is an oxymoron unless it is a small
unobtrusive tattoo. Other than that, large sleeve-type, extensive
coverage, or tattoos of skulls and zombies signal masculinity to
many observers, and this follows the current cultural trend of women
demanding equality with men; they strive to become like men and
display it in their names, occupations, recreation, fashion,
styles, tattoos and even vocal fry.

Really? Because women have been getting tattoos in Western cultures for
well over a century. Feminism, perhaps, but the newest form thereof seems
a bit of a stretch.

Katy Jennison

2018-02-25 12:37:17 UTC

Post by Mack A. Damia
On Sat, 24 Feb 2018 18:56:01 -0500, Tony Cooper

"Good-looking tattooed women" is an oxymoron unless it is a small
unobtrusive tattoo. Other than that, large sleeve-type, extensive
coverage, or tattoos of skulls and zombies signal masculinity to
many observers, and this follows the current cultural trend of women
demanding equality with men; they strive to become like men and
display it in their names, occupations, recreation, fashion,
styles, tattoos and even vocal fry.

Really? Because women have been getting tattoos in Western cultures for
well over a century. Feminism, perhaps, but the newest form thereof seems
a bit of a stretch.

I know quite a number of women of all ages with tattoos. While they
might all be loosely described as feminists (I don't actually know a
great many anti-feminists), I don't think most of them would think of
their tattoos as having anything much to do with feminism. Fashion,
perhaps, but much more along the lines of any other sort of
body-modification, in which I include other choices such as ear-piercing
but also hair-cutting and hair-colour and -style, and nail polish, and
any sort of makeup. In other words, "I like that look".

--
Katy Jennison

Peter T. Daniels

2018-02-25 14:14:35 UTC

Post by Mack A. Damia
On Sat, 24 Feb 2018 18:56:01 -0500, Tony Cooper

Many people will have heard of the Will Ferrell movie incorporating the name in its title.

Post by Mack A. Damia
"Good-looking tattooed women" is an oxymoron unless it is a small
unobtrusive tattoo. Other than that, large sleeve-type, extensive
coverage, or tattoos of skulls and zombies signal masculinity to
many observers, and this follows the current cultural trend of women
demanding equality with men; they strive to become like men and
display it in their names, occupations, recreation, fashion,
styles, tattoos and even vocal fry.

Apparently persons of your generation find "beauty" marks, as borne by Marilyn Monroe
and Cindy Crawford, to be marks of "beauty." I don't see how that can be.

Will Parsons

2018-02-25 00:13:45 UTC

Post by Ken Blake
On Fri, 23 Feb 2018 20:27:38 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Ken Blake
On Fri, 23 Feb 2018 16:53:46 +0100, Paul Carmichael

Post by Paul Carmichael
What Americans say sounds more like "marmy" to me.

Maybe some Americans, but I've never heard anyone say anything close
to that.

Yes, but you're probably rhotic.

Indeed. That use of "ar" frequently causes cross-pondian confusion here.
It represents the sound a non-rhotic speaker would make for "ar". It
could, informally, be described as a voiced-ah sound.

As opposed to a voiceless ah-sound??
Japanese "has" "voiceless vowels," which are phonologically real but phonetically
nonexistent.

I'm guessing you meant to write "phonemically nonexistent" - they
certainly are a phonetic reality.

--
Will

Peter T. Daniels

2018-02-25 04:35:31 UTC

Post by Will Parsons

Post by Ken Blake
On Fri, 23 Feb 2018 20:27:38 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Ken Blake
On Fri, 23 Feb 2018 16:53:46 +0100, Paul Carmichael

Post by Paul Carmichael
What Americans say sounds more like "marmy" to me.

Maybe some Americans, but I've never heard anyone say anything close
to that.

Yes, but you're probably rhotic.

Indeed. That use of "ar" frequently causes cross-pondian confusion here.
It represents the sound a non-rhotic speaker would make for "ar". It
could, informally, be described as a voiced-ah sound.

As opposed to a voiceless ah-sound??
Japanese "has" "voiceless vowels," which are phonologically real but phonetically
nonexistent.

I'm guessing you meant to write "phonemically nonexistent" - they
certainly are a phonetic reality.

Not according to

Beckman, M. E. 1982. “Segmental Duration and the ‘Mora’ in Japanese.” Phonetica 39: 113–35.

"phonemic" = "phonological" (different traditions)

Peter Moylan

2018-02-25 01:18:28 UTC

Post by Ken Blake
On Fri, 23 Feb 2018 20:27:38 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Ken Blake
On Fri, 23 Feb 2018 16:53:46 +0100, Paul Carmichael

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
It's worth noting that the way American speakers say "Mom(my)" is much
closer to how
"Mum(my)" sounds when spoken by a British English speaker than
"Mom(my)" would sound if it
were a British English term.

What Americans say sounds more like "marmy" to me.

Maybe some Americans, but I've never heard anyone say anything close
to that.

Yes, but you're probably rhotic.

Indeed. That use of "ar" frequently causes cross-pondian confusion here.
It represents the sound a non-rhotic speaker would make for "ar". It
could, informally, be described as a voiced-ah sound.

I assume you mean an unaspirated ah sound.

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia

Peter T. Daniels

2018-02-25 04:36:15 UTC

Post by Ken Blake
On Fri, 23 Feb 2018 20:27:38 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Ken Blake
On Fri, 23 Feb 2018 16:53:46 +0100, Paul Carmichael

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
It's worth noting that the way American speakers say "Mom(my)" is much
closer to how
"Mum(my)" sounds when spoken by a British English speaker than
"Mom(my)" would sound if it
were a British English term.

What Americans say sounds more like "marmy" to me.

Maybe some Americans, but I've never heard anyone say anything close
to that.

Yes, but you're probably rhotic.

Indeed. That use of "ar" frequently causes cross-pondian confusion here.
It represents the sound a non-rhotic speaker would make for "ar". It
could, informally, be described as a voiced-ah sound.

I assume you mean an unaspirated ah sound.

That also doesn't make phonetic sense.

musika

2018-02-23 15:56:21 UTC

Post by Ken Blake
On Thu, 22 Feb 2018 03:36:54 -0000 (UTC), Steve Hayes

Post by Steve Hayes
I recently read a kids' book set in California, but it had a UK
publisher, so was translated into BrE, and I found it
distracting -- I don't think American kids refer to their mother
as "Mum"

Right. I've never said "Mum," or heard anyone else in the US do so.
Young children usually say "Mommy," and then switch to "Mom" when
they get older, sometimes using "Mom" even after they become
adults.

It's worth noting that the way American speakers say "Mom(my)" is
much closer to how "Mum(my)" sounds when spoken by a British English
speaker than "Mom(my)" would sound if it were a British English
term.

But it is - in West Midlands. You're right of course that it doesn't
sound like the US "mom".

--
Ray
UK

Katy Jennison

2018-02-23 16:24:39 UTC

Post by Ken Blake
On Thu, 22 Feb 2018 03:36:54 -0000 (UTC), Steve Hayes

Yes, it took me a while to realise that, because when reading the word
"Mom" or "Mommy" in American sources I automatically mentally pronounced
it with a BrE "o".

I observed at a very young age that Alcott's Mrs March was "Marmee",
which naturally reminded me of Marmite (which was was a pleasant
domestic association). At that age I'd never heard of rhoticism, nor
the general lack of it in New England, or I might have raised a youthful
eyebrow.

--
Katy Jennison

Jerry Friedman

2018-02-23 21:31:39 UTC

Post by Ken Blake
On Thu, 22 Feb 2018 03:36:54 -0000 (UTC), Steve Hayes

Yes, it took me a while to realise that, because when reading the word
"Mom" or "Mommy" in American sources I automatically mentally pronounced
it with a BrE "o".
I observed at a very young age that Alcott's Mrs March was "Marmee",
which naturally reminded me of Marmite (which was was a pleasant
domestic association). At that age I'd never heard of rhoticism, nor
the general lack of it in New England, or I might have raised a youthful
eyebrow.

I know a woman from New York who jokingly used "Marmee" about herself
in relation to her children. Maybe she got it from /Little Women/.

--
Jerry Friedman

Ken Blake

2018-02-23 19:10:11 UTC

On Fri, 23 Feb 2018 16:37:01 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Ken Blake
On Thu, 22 Feb 2018 03:36:54 -0000 (UTC), Steve Hayes

I suspect that what you say is true of only *some* American speakers.

Athel Cornish-Bowden

2018-02-23 19:26:55 UTC

Post by Ken Blake
On Fri, 23 Feb 2018 16:37:01 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Ken Blake
On Thu, 22 Feb 2018 03:36:54 -0000 (UTC), Steve Hayes

I suspect that what you say is true of only *some* American speakers.

No doubt, but I was happy that Katy agreed with me. I thought I was
going to get shouted down from all sides.

--
athel

Peter T. Daniels

2018-02-16 22:05:19 UTC

Post by Paul
According to https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/03/the-folly-of-sober-minded-cynicism/273686/
Ta Nehisi-Coates said " I was skeptical of war, but if the U.S. was going to take out a mad tyrant, who was I to object? "
https://www.lrb.co.uk/v40/n04/pankaj-mishra/why-do-white-people-like-what-i-write
which says BEGIN QUOTE
He, too, was ‘sceptical’, he wrote a decade later in a blog post for the Atlantic,
‘but if the US was going to take out a mad tyrant, who was I to object?’
END QUOTE
Surely, he was "skeptical" rather than "sceptical".
What on earth is the justification for changing the written text?
Paul Epstein

Didn't we just do that? (Not with that particular word.)

A more interesting question is why he's spelled that way, when he's pronounced
"Tanahasi," accent on the first and third syllables.

Madrigal Gurneyhalt

2018-02-17 00:04:51 UTC

You really have to get out more!

Colonel Edmund J. Burke

2018-02-23 16:46:50 UTC

You really have to get out more!

Madrigal? LOL!
Fucking queer names these cunt limeys have!

Athel Cornish-Bowden

2018-02-17 10:15:43 UTC

Post by Paul
According to
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/03/the-folly-of-sober-minded-cynicism/273686/
Ta Nehisi-Coates said " I was skeptical of war, but if the U.S. was
going to take out a mad tyrant, who was I to object? "
https://www.lrb.co.uk/v40/n04/pankaj-mishra/why-do-white-people-like-what-i-write
which says BEGIN QUOTE
He, too, was ‘sceptical’, he wrote a decade later in a blog post for
the Atlantic,‘but if the US was going to take out a mad tyrant, who was
I to object?’
END QUOTE
Surely, he was "skeptical" rather than "sceptical".

No. He _wrote_ "skeptical", but he was _being_ sceptical.

Post by Paul
What on earth is the justification for changing the written text?

I don't think extracting a single word from a sentence constitutes a
quotation. I would have have written "sceptical" too. You can find
plenty of examples in this group: someones refers to a word used by
someone else and spells it in the way that comes naturally.

--
athel

Peter Moylan

2018-02-25 01:29:44 UTC

Post by Paul
According to
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/03/the-folly-of-sober-minded-cynicism/273686/
Ta Nehisi-Coates said " I was skeptical of war, but if the U.S.
was going to take out a mad tyrant, who was I to object? "
https://www.lrb.co.uk/v40/n04/pankaj-mishra/why-do-white-people-like-what-i-write
which says BEGIN QUOTE He, too, was ‘sceptical’, he wrote a decade
later in a blog post for the Atlantic,‘but if the US was going to
take out a mad tyrant, who was I to object?’ END QUOTE
Surely, he was "skeptical" rather than "sceptical".

No. He _wrote_ "skeptical", but he was _being_ sceptical.

Post by Paul
What on earth is the justification for changing the written text?

But we don't put it in quotation marks. The quotation marks are supposed
to be an indication that it's a verbatim quotation.

Remove the quotation marks, and I would agree with you.

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia

Garrett Wollman

2018-02-25 03:26:38 UTC

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
I don't think extracting a single word from a sentence constitutes a
quotation. I would have have written "sceptical" too. You can find
plenty of examples in this group: someones refers to a word used by
someone else and spells it in the way that comes naturally.

But we don't put it in quotation marks. The quotation marks are supposed
to be an indication that it's a verbatim quotation.

Except in British journalism, where it's an indication that someone
(who is emphatically not the journalist or the editors of this
publication, so please don't sue us for libel) said something that was
taken as having the indicated meaning, regardless of what actual words
they used.

-GAWollman

Peter Duncanson [BrE]

2018-02-25 12:39:16 UTC

But we don't put it in quotation marks. The quotation marks are supposed
to be an indication that it's a verbatim quotation.

Agreed. The material in quotation marks may be verbatim or a paraphrase.
This is particularly noticeable in headlines where the "quoted" material
can be a brief summary of what someone has said.

There is an instance in yesterday's Times of London. An article has this
headline and first two paragraphs:

Troops ‘need anthrax jabs’ as threat grows

Britain has drawn up plans to vaccinate thousands of troops against
anthrax to be better prepared to respond in the event of a war with
North Korea or a terrorist attack at home.

Gavin Williamson, the defence secretary, is understood to be
considering the introduction of an anthrax vaccination programme for
all service personnel on short notice to mobilise, Whitehall sources
say.

On the opposite page there is the headline

Fatal hit-and-run scene 'like a war zone'

That is a verbatim quote from the aunt of the two young children killed
in the crash reported in the article.

I've noticed that in the Times there is often a difference between the
headlines in the print version and the online version. Sometimes the
print version is the online version shortened. In other cases it is
completely different.

That is the case for those two articles. The headlines above are the
print versions. The online headlines are:

Troops ‘need anthrax jabs’ as North Korea and terrorism threat grows
and
Mother pays tribute to Casper and Corey Platt-May, boys killed in
hit-and-run crash

--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

Neill Massello

2018-02-17 10:23:47 UTC

Post by Paul
Surely, he was "skeptical" rather than "sceptical".
What on earth is the justification for changing the written text?

I don't know, but this kind of thing just makes me sic.

Peter Duncanson [BrE]

2018-02-17 10:40:53 UTC

Possible because the spelling "skeptical" could be distracting to a BrE
reader. My impression is that in general we Brits are familiar with the
AmE spellings of words such as "color" and "center", but we don't see
"skeptical" frequently enough to accept it without noticing.
Some Brits could be so unfamiliar with that spelling that they might
wonder whether "skeptical" is simply a spelling of "sceptical" or a
different word or whether is wordplay that has them whooshed.

--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

J. J. Lodder

2018-02-17 13:14:36 UTC

Post by Paul
According to https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/03/the-folly-o

f-sober-minded-cynicism/273686/

Post by Paul
Ta Nehisi-Coates said " I was skeptical of war, but if the U.S. was going
to take out a mad tyrant, who was I to object? "
https://www.lrb.co.uk/v40/n04/pankaj-mishra/why-do-white-people-like-what-i-w

rite

Post by Paul
which says BEGIN QUOTE
He, too, was 'sceptical', he wrote a decade later in a blog post for the
Atlantic, 'but if the US was going to take out a mad tyrant, who was I to
object?'
END QUOTE
Surely, he was "skeptical" rather than "sceptical".
What on earth is the justification for changing the written text?
Paul Epstein

Organised British skeptics do use the 'skeptic' spelling exclusively.
<https://www.skeptic.org.uk/>

Jan

Madrigal Gurneyhalt

2018-02-17 13:46:31 UTC

Post by Paul

Post by Paul
According to https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/03/the-folly-o

f-sober-minded-cynicism/273686/

rite

Organised British skeptics do use the 'skeptic' spelling exclusively.
<https://www.skeptic.org.uk/>
Jan

Are you sure about that?

https://www.skeptic.org.uk/?s=sceptic

J. J. Lodder

2018-02-17 22:45:58 UTC

Post by Paul

Post by Paul
According to https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/03/the-fol

ly-o

Post by Paul
f-sober-minded-cynicism/273686/

-i-w

Post by Paul
rite

Organised British skeptics do use the 'skeptic' spelling exclusively.
<https://www.skeptic.org.uk/>
Jan

Are you sure about that?
https://www.skeptic.org.uk/?s=sceptic

Seems like a misprint to me, or an editing error.
It doesn't repeat,

Jan

Whiskers

2018-02-23 15:09:50 UTC

Post by Paul

Post by Paul
According to https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/03/the-folly-o

f-sober-minded-cynicism/273686/

rite

Organised British skeptics do use the 'skeptic' spelling exclusively.
<https://www.skeptic.org.uk/>
Jan

I seem to remember a time when 'sceptic' was the usual BrE word for the
concept, but pronounced to sound like 'septic', which was an annoying
confusion. So I was quite pleased to discover that 'skeptic' was an
alternative and more helpful spelling and pronunciation. I think this
led to at least one class-room discussion.

--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~

musika

2018-02-23 15:18:39 UTC

Post by Whiskers

Post by J. J. Lodder
Organised British skeptics do use the 'skeptic' spelling exclusively.
<https://www.skeptic.org.uk/>

Besides, he's wrong.

About ‘The Skeptic’

The Skeptic is the UK’s only regular magazine to take a sceptical look
at pseudoscience and claims of the paranormal.

--
Ray
UK

Paul Carmichael

2018-02-23 15:57:54 UTC

Post by Whiskers

Post by J. J. Lodder
Organised British skeptics do use the 'skeptic' spelling exclusively.
<https://www.skeptic.org.uk/>

Besides, he's wrong.
About ‘The Skeptic’
The Skeptic is the UK’s only regular magazine to take a sceptical look at pseudoscience
and claims of the paranormal.

A title then. Like McNuggets.

--
Paul.

https://paulc.es/
https://asetrad.org

Whiskers

2018-02-23 17:24:49 UTC

Post by Whiskers

Post by J. J. Lodder
Organised British skeptics do use the 'skeptic' spelling exclusively.
<https://www.skeptic.org.uk/>

Besides, he's wrong.
About ‘The Skeptic’
The Skeptic is the UK’s only regular magazine to take a sceptical look
at pseudoscience and claims of the paranormal.

I don't think it signifies anything, that Skeptic.org.uk sometimes
spells the word with a c instead of a k. This may be a side-effect of
their spelling checking software being set to permit either spelling.
Perhaps they would rectify this inconsistency were it brought to their
attention.

Both spellings seem to have a good age to them, for both BrE and AmE
users, as far as OED can tell - although it does comment 'now usually
spelt sceptic in the UK [...] and skeptic in the US'.

--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~

John Dunlop

2018-02-17 14:36:48 UTC

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Possible because the spelling "skeptical" could be distracting to a
BrE reader. My impression is that in general we Brits are familiar
with the AmE spellings of words such as "color" and "center", but we
don't see "skeptical" frequently enough to accept it without
noticing. Some Brits could be so unfamiliar with that spelling that
they might wonder whether "skeptical" is simply a spelling of
"sceptical" or a different word or whether is wordplay that has them
whooshed.

Others of us are familiar enough with it to have no idea which is
which without looking it up. "Color" and "center" I can remember;
"gr[ae]y" and "s[ck]eptical" I can't.

--
John

Peter T. Daniels

2018-02-17 14:57:37 UTC

Post by John Dunlop

Others of us are familiar enough with it to have no idea which is
which without looking it up. "Color" and "center" I can remember;
"gr[ae]y" and "s[ck]eptical" I can't.

Just think of Lady Jane Grey. (We can refer to The Blue and the Gray.) I knew
a fellow -- an immigrant -- who was incensed when I once spelled his surname
Stuart (not having seen it written before) -- he claimed that was English
meddling with the only proper form, Stewart. (I don't think art historians
are going to switch to Tudor-Stewart any time soon, though.)

charles

2018-02-17 15:12:28 UTC

Others of us are familiar enough with it to have no idea which is which
without looking it up. "Color" and "center" I can remember; "gr[ae]y"
and "s[ck]eptical" I can't.

Just think of Lady Jane Grey. (We can refer to The Blue and the Gray.) I
knew a fellow -- an immigrant -- who was incensed when I once spelled
his surname Stuart (not having seen it written before) -- he claimed
that was English meddling with the only proper form, Stewart. (I don't
think art historians are going to switch to Tudor-Stewart any time soon,
though.)

Stuart is the FRENCH spelling. It arrive when Mary, Queen of Scots,
returned from France. Stewart or even Steward, is the 14th Century original
version of the Scottish monarchy.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

HVS

2018-02-17 15:57:11 UTC

On Sat, 17 Feb 2018 15:12:28 +0000 (GMT), charles

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Possible because the spelling "skeptical" could be

distracting to a

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
BrE reader. My impression is that in general we Brits are familiar
with the AmE spellings of words such as "color" and "center", but we
don't see "skeptical" frequently enough to accept it without
noticing. Some Brits could be so unfamiliar with that

spelling that

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
they might wonder whether "skeptical" is simply a spelling of
"sceptical" or a different word or whether is wordplay that has them
whooshed.

Others of us are familiar enough with it to have no idea which is which
without looking it up. "Color" and "center" I can remember; "gr[ae]y"
and "s[ck]eptical" I can't.

claimed