A wee bit of capsizing

[Sam Plusnet]

There was a recent a BBC report on the effects of rough weather on a
ferry during the crossing from Northern Ireland to Scotland.
This resulted in lorries being thrown onto their sides and cars being
crushed. Happily the were no reports of serious injuries.


Mr Mcerlean was on board when the alarm was raised.

He said: "We got on the ferry about half four and it was a wee bit rough
and choppy coming along.

"About halfway across it sort of went into a big dip and came back out
of it and that is when all the wrecking took place.

"After that the boat was sort of capsizing over a wee bit, leaning over
a wee bit."

Asked if he thought the ferry was going to topple over, Mr Mcerlean
replied: "We thought she was away at that time."

Mr Mcerlean said: "It happened that quick that people didn't know what
was taking place and everybody was nervous and afraid if we were going
on over.

"There was a lot of panic going on."

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by Sam Plusnet
There was a recent a BBC report on the effects of rough weather on a
ferry during the crossing from Northern Ireland to Scotland.
This resulted in lorries being thrown onto their sides and cars being
crushed. Happily the were no reports of serious injuries.

BBC reporting
=============
He said: "It was quite a heavy journey and some of the cars had bounced
into each other and there was quite a bit of damage, there was even one
car which lost its front bumper."
=============

British reporting at its best,

Jan

[Janet]

In article <***@de-ster.xs4all.nl>, ***@de-
ster.demon.nl says...

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Sam Plusnet
There was a recent a BBC report on the effects of rough weather on a
ferry during the crossing from Northern Ireland to Scotland.
This resulted in lorries being thrown onto their sides and cars being
crushed. Happily the were no reports of serious injuries.

BBC reporting
=============
He said: "It was quite a heavy journey and some of the cars had bounced
into each other and there was quite a bit of damage, there was even one
car which lost its front bumper."
=============
British reporting at its best,

Do try to keep up.

Your quote is from 2012, about damage on the ferry from Jersey to
Devon Here it is.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-jersey-20160643

Sam was talking about damage on the ferry between Ireland and Scotland
two days ago

https://news.sky.com/story/lorries-overturn-on-ferry-at-cairnryan-in-
scotland-as-high-winds-wreak-havoc-11585065

Janet

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by Janet
ster.demon.nl says...

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Sam Plusnet
There was a recent a BBC report on the effects of rough weather on a
ferry during the crossing from Northern Ireland to Scotland.
This resulted in lorries being thrown onto their sides and cars being
crushed. Happily the were no reports of serious injuries.

BBC reporting
=============
He said: "It was quite a heavy journey and some of the cars had bounced
into each other and there was quite a bit of damage, there was even one
car which lost its front bumper."
=============
British reporting at its best,

Do try to keep up.
Your quote is from 2012, about damage on the ferry from Jersey to
Devon Here it is.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-jersey-20160643
Sam was talking about damage on the ferry between Ireland and Scotland
two days ago
https://news.sky.com/story/lorries-overturn-on-ferry-at-cairnryan-in-
scotland-as-high-winds-wreak-havoc-11585065

Yes, my bad. You are completely right of course,

Jan

[William Gothberg]

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Sam Plusnet
There was a recent a BBC report on the effects of rough weather on a
ferry during the crossing from Northern Ireland to Scotland.
This resulted in lorries being thrown onto their sides and cars being
crushed. Happily the were no reports of serious injuries.

BBC reporting
=============
He said: "It was quite a heavy journey and some of the cars had bounced
into each other and there was quite a bit of damage, there was even one
car which lost its front bumper."
=============
British reporting at its best,

It makes perfect sense, you should look at your inability to interpret English that isn't precisely like your own and ask yourself if you need help. You must have severe difficulties talking to people when you travel more than 10 miles form your home.

[John Varela]

Post by Sam Plusnet
There was a recent a BBC report on the effects of rough weather on a
ferry during the crossing from Northern Ireland to Scotland.
This resulted in lorries being thrown onto their sides and cars being
crushed. Happily the were no reports of serious injuries.
Mr Mcerlean was on board when the alarm was raised.
He said: "We got on the ferry about half four and it was a wee bit rough
and choppy coming along.
"About halfway across it sort of went into a big dip and came back out
of it and that is when all the wrecking took place.
"After that the boat was sort of capsizing over a wee bit, leaning over
a wee bit."
Asked if he thought the ferry was going to topple over, Mr Mcerlean
replied: "We thought she was away at that time."
Mr Mcerlean said: "It happened that quick that people didn't know what
was taking place and everybody was nervous and afraid if we were going
on over.
"There was a lot of panic going on."

A "sort of capsizing a wee bit" is a description that's a little bit
unique, innit? Presumably the man being quoted was no mariner and
unaware that what they took was a bit of a wee roll.

[Ross]

Post by John Varela

Post by Sam Plusnet
There was a recent a BBC report on the effects of rough weather on a
ferry during the crossing from Northern Ireland to Scotland.
This resulted in lorries being thrown onto their sides and cars being
crushed. Happily the were no reports of serious injuries.
Mr Mcerlean was on board when the alarm was raised.
He said: "We got on the ferry about half four and it was a wee bit rough
and choppy coming along.
"About halfway across it sort of went into a big dip and came back out
of it and that is when all the wrecking took place.
"After that the boat was sort of capsizing over a wee bit, leaning over
a wee bit."
Asked if he thought the ferry was going to topple over, Mr Mcerlean
replied: "We thought she was away at that time."
Mr Mcerlean said: "It happened that quick that people didn't know what
was taking place and everybody was nervous and afraid if we were going
on over.
"There was a lot of panic going on."

A "sort of capsizing a wee bit" is a description that's a little bit
unique, innit? Presumably the man being quoted was no mariner and
unaware that what they took was a bit of a wee roll.
--
John Varela

I think it's a reasonable description for someone who doesn't know the
word "list".

[RHDraney]

Post by John Varela
A "sort of capsizing a wee bit" is a description that's a little bit
unique, innit? Presumably the man being quoted was no mariner and
unaware that what they took was a bit of a wee roll.

Is that the tissue paper you use to clean up after using the urinal?...r

[John Varela]

Post by RHDraney

Post by John Varela
A "sort of capsizing a wee bit" is a description that's a little bit
unique, innit? Presumably the man being quoted was no mariner and
unaware that what they took was a bit of a wee roll.

Is that the tissue paper you use to clean up after using the urinal?...r

I have yet to see paper provided at the urinals, so No. This
reminds me of a verse I saw on a men's room wall in the Student
Union at the University of the South, Sewanee:

You can shake it, you can break it,
You can beat it against the wall,
But until you put it in your pants
That last drop won't fall.

[Peter Moylan]

Post by John Varela

Post by RHDraney

Post by John Varela
A "sort of capsizing a wee bit" is a description that's a little bit
unique, innit? Presumably the man being quoted was no mariner and
unaware that what they took was a bit of a wee roll.

Is that the tissue paper you use to clean up after using the urinal?...r

I have yet to see paper provided at the urinals, so No. This
reminds me of a verse I saw on a men's room wall in the Student
You can shake it, you can break it,
You can beat it against the wall,
But until you put it in your pants
That last drop won't fall.

That's new to me, but I've often seen a ditty that expresses the same
sentiment.

No matter how you shake your peg
The last few drops run down your leg.
No matter how you jump and dance
The last few drops fall in your pants.

[John Varela]

On Thu, 20 Dec 2018 23:41:07 UTC, Peter Moylan

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by John Varela

Post by RHDraney

Post by John Varela
A "sort of capsizing a wee bit" is a description that's a little bit
unique, innit? Presumably the man being quoted was no mariner and
unaware that what they took was a bit of a wee roll.

Is that the tissue paper you use to clean up after using the urinal?...r

I have yet to see paper provided at the urinals, so No. This
reminds me of a verse I saw on a men's room wall in the Student
You can shake it, you can break it,
You can beat it against the wall,
But until you put it in your pants
That last drop won't fall.

That's new to me, but I've often seen a ditty that expresses the same
sentiment.
No matter how you shake your peg
The last few drops run down your leg.
No matter how you jump and dance
The last few drops fall in your pants.

Why am I not surprised that you are the only person to respond to
that one?

[Jerry Friedman]

Post by John Varela
On Thu, 20 Dec 2018 23:41:07 UTC, Peter Moylan

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by John Varela

Post by RHDraney

Post by John Varela
A "sort of capsizing a wee bit" is a description that's a little bit
unique, innit? Presumably the man being quoted was no mariner and
unaware that what they took was a bit of a wee roll.

Is that the tissue paper you use to clean up after using the urinal?...r

I have yet to see paper provided at the urinals, so No. This
reminds me of a verse I saw on a men's room wall in the Student
You can shake it, you can break it,
You can beat it against the wall,
But until you put it in your pants
That last drop won't fall.

That's new to me, but I've often seen a ditty that expresses the same
sentiment.
No matter how you shake your peg
The last few drops run down your leg.
No matter how you jump and dance
The last few drops fall in your pants.

Why am I not surprised that you are the only person to respond to
that one?

Because it involves a peter in a john? Not necessarily a
jerry-built one.

I heard your latrinalium from a college friend who said he got it
from his father.

[John Varela]

On Fri, 21 Dec 2018 21:05:07 UTC, Jerry Friedman

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by John Varela
On Thu, 20 Dec 2018 23:41:07 UTC, Peter Moylan

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by John Varela

Post by RHDraney

Post by John Varela
A "sort of capsizing a wee bit" is a description that's a little bit
unique, innit? Presumably the man being quoted was no mariner and
unaware that what they took was a bit of a wee roll.

Is that the tissue paper you use to clean up after using the urinal?...r

I have yet to see paper provided at the urinals, so No. This
reminds me of a verse I saw on a men's room wall in the Student
You can shake it, you can break it,
You can beat it against the wall,
But until you put it in your pants
That last drop won't fall.

That's new to me, but I've often seen a ditty that expresses the same
sentiment.
No matter how you shake your peg
The last few drops run down your leg.
No matter how you jump and dance
The last few drops fall in your pants.

Why am I not surprised that you are the only person to respond to
that one?

Because it involves a peter in a john? Not necessarily a
jerry-built one.
I heard your latrinalium from a college friend who said he got it
from his father.

Did his father go to Sewanee?

[Jerry Friedman]

Post by John Varela
On Fri, 21 Dec 2018 21:05:07 UTC, Jerry Friedman

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by John Varela
On Thu, 20 Dec 2018 23:41:07 UTC, Peter Moylan

…

Post by John Varela

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by John Varela

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by John Varela
This
reminds me of a verse I saw on a men's room wall in the Student
You can shake it, you can break it,
You can beat it against the wall,
But until you put it in your pants
That last drop won't fall.

That's new to me, but I've often seen a ditty that expresses the same
sentiment.
No matter how you shake your peg
The last few drops run down your leg.
No matter how you jump and dance
The last few drops fall in your pants.

Why am I not surprised that you are the only person to respond to
that one?

Because it involves a peter in a john? Not necessarily a
jerry-built one.
I heard your latrinalium from a college friend who said he got it
from his father.

Did his father go to Sewanee?

No, Harvard for undergrad and Michigan for grad school.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by John Varela
On Thu, 20 Dec 2018 23:41:07 UTC, Peter Moylan

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by John Varela

Post by RHDraney

Post by John Varela
A "sort of capsizing a wee bit" is a description that's a little bit
unique, innit? Presumably the man being quoted was no mariner and
unaware that what they took was a bit of a wee roll.

Is that the tissue paper you use to clean up after using the urinal?...r

I have yet to see paper provided at the urinals, so No. This
reminds me of a verse I saw on a men's room wall in the Student
You can shake it, you can break it,
You can beat it against the wall,
But until you put it in your pants
That last drop won't fall.

That's new to me, but I've often seen a ditty that expresses the same
sentiment.
No matter how you shake your peg
The last few drops run down your leg.
No matter how you jump and dance
The last few drops fall in your pants.

Why am I not surprised that you are the only person to respond to
that one?

In my case because I didn't see it until now: my interest in capsizing
is limited. Now that I've read it, my response is "how true".

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by John Varela

Post by RHDraney

Post by John Varela
A "sort of capsizing a wee bit" is a description that's a little bit
unique, innit? Presumably the man being quoted was no mariner and
unaware that what they took was a bit of a wee roll.

Is that the tissue paper you use to clean up after using the urinal?...r

I have yet to see paper provided at the urinals, so No. This
reminds me of a verse I saw on a men's room wall in the Student
You can shake it, you can break it,
You can beat it against the wall,
But until you put it in your pants
That last drop won't fall.

That's new to me, but I've often seen a ditty that expresses the same
sentiment.
No matter how you shake your peg
The last few drops run down your leg.
No matter how you jump and dance
The last few drops fall in your pants.

No matter how much
You jiggle and squeeze,
The last drop always
Runs down your knees.

That was written over the urinals in the bathroom at my father's office
(on the fifth floor, shared by about three small businesses), in a cast-
iron building that was demolished ca. 1965 to make way for the World
Trade Center.

[Anders D. Nygaard]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by RHDraney

Post by John Varela
A "sort of capsizing a wee bit" is a description that's a little bit
unique, innit?  Presumably the man being quoted was no mariner and
unaware that what they took was a bit of a wee roll.

Is that the tissue paper you use to clean up after using the urinal?...r

I have yet to see paper provided at the urinals, so No.  This
reminds me of a verse I saw on a men's room wall in the Student
        You can shake it, you can break it,
        You can beat it against the wall,
        But until you put it in your pants
        That last drop won't fall.

That's new to me, but I've often seen a ditty that expresses the same
sentiment.
      No matter how you shake your peg
      The last few drops run down your leg.
      No matter how you jump and dance
      The last few drops fall in your pants.

ObAUE: Do the last two lines actually rhyme? No /t/ in "pants"?

/Anders, Denmark.

PS. And I agree (all too much) with the sentiment.

[Tony Cooper]

On Fri, 28 Dec 2018 16:12:35 +0100, "Anders D. Nygaard"

Post by Anders D. Nygaard

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by RHDraney

Post by John Varela
A "sort of capsizing a wee bit" is a description that's a little bit
unique, innit?  Presumably the man being quoted was no mariner and
unaware that what they took was a bit of a wee roll.

Is that the tissue paper you use to clean up after using the urinal?...r

I have yet to see paper provided at the urinals, so No.  This
reminds me of a verse I saw on a men's room wall in the Student
        You can shake it, you can break it,
        You can beat it against the wall,
        But until you put it in your pants
        That last drop won't fall.

That's new to me, but I've often seen a ditty that expresses the same
sentiment.
      No matter how you shake your peg
      The last few drops run down your leg.
      No matter how you jump and dance
      The last few drops fall in your pants.

ObAUE: Do the last two lines actually rhyme? No /t/ in "pants"?

Yes, "pants" sounds like "panCe".

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by Tony Cooper
On Fri, 28 Dec 2018 16:12:35 +0100, "Anders D. Nygaard"

Post by Anders D. Nygaard

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by John Varela

Post by RHDraney

Post by John Varela
A "sort of capsizing a wee bit" is a description that's a little bit
unique, innit? Presumably the man being quoted was no mariner and
unaware that what they took was a bit of a wee roll.

Is that the tissue paper you use to clean up after using the urinal?...r

I have yet to see paper provided at the urinals, so No. This
reminds me of a verse I saw on a men's room wall in the Student
You can shake it, you can break it,
You can beat it against the wall,
But until you put it in your pants
That last drop won't fall.

That's new to me, but I've often seen a ditty that expresses the same
sentiment.
No matter how you shake your peg
The last few drops run down your leg.
No matter how you jump and dance
The last few drops fall in your pants.

ObAUE: Do the last two lines actually rhyme? No /t/ in "pants"?

Yes, "pants" sounds like "panCe".

I remember a masterful comment
on S. S. van Dine's snobby detective hero,

Jan

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Anders D. Nygaard

Post by Peter Moylan
      No matter how you jump and dance
      The last few drops fall in your pants.

ObAUE: Do the last two lines actually rhyme? No /t/ in "pants"?

No, there is very likely a tiny [t] between the [n] and the [s] pf "dance,"
because you're likely to close off the nasal cavity a moment before you
retract the tongue tip from the alveolar ridge (where it is for the [n])
to make the [s].

[Tony Cooper]

On Fri, 28 Dec 2018 09:20:47 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Anders D. Nygaard

Post by Peter Moylan
      No matter how you jump and dance
      The last few drops fall in your pants.

ObAUE: Do the last two lines actually rhyme? No /t/ in "pants"?

No, there is very likely a tiny [t] between the [n] and the [s] pf "dance,"
because you're likely to close off the nasal cavity a moment before you
retract the tongue tip from the alveolar ridge (where it is for the [n])
to make the [s].

Good Lord! Such anatomical gyrations to pronounce "dance"?

"Dance" and "pants" rhyme well enough.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Tony Cooper
On Fri, 28 Dec 2018 09:20:47 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Anders D. Nygaard

Post by Peter Moylan
      No matter how you jump and dance
      The last few drops fall in your pants.

ObAUE: Do the last two lines actually rhyme? No /t/ in "pants"?

No, there is very likely a tiny [t] between the [n] and the [s] pf "dance,"
because you're likely to close off the nasal cavity a moment before you
retract the tongue tip from the alveolar ridge (where it is for the [n])
to make the [s].

Good Lord! Such anatomical gyrations to pronounce "dance"?
"Dance" and "pants" rhyme well enough.

They rhyme perfectly. In one of them, the [t] is spelled, in the other,
it isn't.

If you'd ever bothered to learn anything about the language you pretend
to be interested in the usage of (by perennially posting here), you would
at least know what your tongue, lips, etc., are doing when you speak.

They are indeed "anatomical gyrations," but if you didn't do those
"gyrations" every time you speak, you would not be speaking.

[Paul Wolff]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Tony Cooper
On Fri, 28 Dec 2018 09:20:47 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Anders D. Nygaard

Post by Peter Moylan
      No matter how you jump and dance
      The last few drops fall in your pants.

ObAUE: Do the last two lines actually rhyme? No /t/ in "pants"?

No, there is very likely a tiny [t] between the [n] and the [s] pf "dance,"
because you're likely to close off the nasal cavity a moment before you
retract the tongue tip from the alveolar ridge (where it is for the [n])
to make the [s].

Good Lord! Such anatomical gyrations to pronounce "dance"?
"Dance" and "pants" rhyme well enough.

They rhyme perfectly.

Presumably that's true for some speakers. But in general, there's a good
chance that they don't - if one allows just two different vowel sounds,
and two different consonant combinations, there are straight away four
possible combos. But mainly it's the vowel, of course.

Post by Peter T. Daniels
In one of them, the [t] is spelled, in the other,
it isn't.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Tony Cooper
On Fri, 28 Dec 2018 09:20:47 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Anders D. Nygaard

Post by Peter Moylan
      No matter how you jump and dance
      The last few drops fall in your pants.

ObAUE: Do the last two lines actually rhyme? No /t/ in "pants"?

No, there is very likely a tiny [t] between the [n] and the [s] pf "dance,"
because you're likely to close off the nasal cavity a moment before you
retract the tongue tip from the alveolar ridge (where it is for the [n])
to make the [s].

Good Lord! Such anatomical gyrations to pronounce "dance"?
"Dance" and "pants" rhyme well enough.

They rhyme perfectly.

Presumably that's true for some speakers. But in general, there's a good
chance that they don't - if one allows just two different vowel sounds,
and two different consonant combinations, there are straight away four
possible combos. But mainly it's the vowel, of course.

Ah, there is that. How is an allodialectal to know which words of the
ambiguous group go in the other set for other speakers, or even what the
complete list is?

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by Peter T. Daniels
In one of them, the [t] is spelled, in the other,
it isn't.

[Tony Cooper]

On Fri, 28 Dec 2018 11:25:55 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Tony Cooper
On Fri, 28 Dec 2018 09:20:47 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Anders D. Nygaard

Post by Peter Moylan
      No matter how you jump and dance
      The last few drops fall in your pants.

ObAUE: Do the last two lines actually rhyme? No /t/ in "pants"?

No, there is very likely a tiny [t] between the [n] and the [s] pf "dance,"
because you're likely to close off the nasal cavity a moment before you
retract the tongue tip from the alveolar ridge (where it is for the [n])
to make the [s].

Good Lord! Such anatomical gyrations to pronounce "dance"?
"Dance" and "pants" rhyme well enough.

They rhyme perfectly. In one of them, the [t] is spelled, in the other,
it isn't.
If you'd ever bothered to learn anything about the language you pretend
to be interested in the usage of (by perennially posting here), you would
at least know what your tongue, lips, etc., are doing when you speak.
They are indeed "anatomical gyrations," but if you didn't do those
"gyrations" every time you speak, you would not be speaking.

You and I have differing interests in the use of language. My
interest is in using it...stringing together a series of words that
effectively present a thought in an interesting - maybe humorous - and
understandable manner.

I don't give a fig if my nasal cavity is opening and closing like a
toilet flush flap or if my tongue is probing around trying to mate
with the alveolar ridge when I'm speaking that series of words. What
is important is that they are heard for what they are meant to convey.

You have some strange idea that those of us who perennially post
alt.usage.english must be interested in that what interests you or we
are not qualified to be here. Nothing could be further from the
actuality of what makes this group worth reading: diversity of
interests.

I've been here longer than you have and more people respond (and read)
to my contributions than yours. This has never been a single-interest
newsgroup, and - God Willing and the creeks don't rise - it never will
be.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Tony Cooper
On Fri, 28 Dec 2018 11:25:55 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Tony Cooper
On Fri, 28 Dec 2018 09:20:47 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Anders D. Nygaard

Post by Peter Moylan
      No matter how you jump and dance
      The last few drops fall in your pants.

ObAUE: Do the last two lines actually rhyme? No /t/ in "pants"?

No, there is very likely a tiny [t] between the [n] and the [s] pf "dance,"
because you're likely to close off the nasal cavity a moment before you
retract the tongue tip from the alveolar ridge (where it is for the [n])
to make the [s].

Good Lord! Such anatomical gyrations to pronounce "dance"?
"Dance" and "pants" rhyme well enough.

They rhyme perfectly. In one of them, the [t] is spelled, in the other,
it isn't.
If you'd ever bothered to learn anything about the language you pretend
to be interested in the usage of (by perennially posting here), you would
at least know what your tongue, lips, etc., are doing when you speak.
They are indeed "anatomical gyrations," but if you didn't do those
"gyrations" every time you speak, you would not be speaking.

You and I have differing interests in the use of language. My
interest is in using it...stringing together a series of words that
effectively present a thought in an interesting - maybe humorous - and
understandable manner.
I don't give a fig if my nasal cavity is opening and closing like a
toilet flush flap or if my tongue is probing around trying to mate
with the alveolar ridge when I'm speaking that series of words. What
is important is that they are heard for what they are meant to convey.

Yet you seem to have a pretty good idea of what's going on inside all
your cameras, even though there are probably "no user-serviceable parts"
therein.

Post by Tony Cooper
You have some strange idea that those of us who perennially post
alt.usage.english must be interested in that what interests you or we
are not qualified to be here. Nothing could be further from the
actuality of what makes this group worth reading: diversity of
interests.

Your Trump-like anti-intellectualism is doubtless as wearing on everyone
else as it is on me.

Post by Tony Cooper
I've been here longer than you have and more people respond (and read)
to my contributions than yours. This has never been a single-interest
newsgroup, and - God Willing and the creeks don't rise - it never will
be.

What do you think its name means?

[Tony Cooper]

On Fri, 28 Dec 2018 19:26:40 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Tony Cooper
On Fri, 28 Dec 2018 11:25:55 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Tony Cooper
On Fri, 28 Dec 2018 09:20:47 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Anders D. Nygaard

Post by Peter Moylan
      No matter how you jump and dance
      The last few drops fall in your pants.

ObAUE: Do the last two lines actually rhyme? No /t/ in "pants"?

No, there is very likely a tiny [t] between the [n] and the [s] pf "dance,"
because you're likely to close off the nasal cavity a moment before you
retract the tongue tip from the alveolar ridge (where it is for the [n])
to make the [s].

Good Lord! Such anatomical gyrations to pronounce "dance"?
"Dance" and "pants" rhyme well enough.

They rhyme perfectly. In one of them, the [t] is spelled, in the other,
it isn't.
If you'd ever bothered to learn anything about the language you pretend
to be interested in the usage of (by perennially posting here), you would
at least know what your tongue, lips, etc., are doing when you speak.
They are indeed "anatomical gyrations," but if you didn't do those
"gyrations" every time you speak, you would not be speaking.

You and I have differing interests in the use of language. My
interest is in using it...stringing together a series of words that
effectively present a thought in an interesting - maybe humorous - and
understandable manner.
I don't give a fig if my nasal cavity is opening and closing like a
toilet flush flap or if my tongue is probing around trying to mate
with the alveolar ridge when I'm speaking that series of words. What
is important is that they are heard for what they are meant to convey.

Yet you seem to have a pretty good idea of what's going on inside all
your cameras, even though there are probably "no user-serviceable parts"
therein.

You have unwittingly touched on a topic that is related to this
exchange. There are photographers who are more interested in the
mechanics of the camera than the output of the camera.

They are ones in the photography groups that natter on about sensor
size, megapixel capacity, and other mechanical aspects of their
camera, but many are not capable of producing an interesting
photograph. They buy the newest and the latest camera model, and then
churn out endless photos of flowers that look like every other
photograph of a flower.

I know the basics of how my camera works, and the basics of
composition and exposure, but it is the output of that camera that
most interests me. If the output is interesting, what happened inside
the camera to capture that output is secondary to my interest.

I use an old (bought in 2007) and battered Nikon D300. The battery
cover is held on by a strip of masking tape. The bells and whistles
of a newer model would not improve my ability to see what is
photographable and compose that scene effectively.

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Tony Cooper
You have some strange idea that those of us who perennially post
alt.usage.english must be interested in that what interests you or we
are not qualified to be here. Nothing could be further from the
actuality of what makes this group worth reading: diversity of
interests.

Your Trump-like anti-intellectualism is doubtless as wearing on everyone
else as it is on me.

Yes, I lack the intellectualism to feel it is of interest to discuss,
in mind-numbing detail, the location of a fast food joint in relation
to my dental hygienist's office.

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Tony Cooper
I've been here longer than you have and more people respond (and read)
to my contributions than yours. This has never been a single-interest
newsgroup, and - God Willing and the creeks don't rise - it never will
be.

What do you think its name means?

[Anders D. Nygaard]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Tony Cooper
[...]
You and I have differing interests in the use of language. My
interest is in using it...stringing together a series of words that
effectively present a thought in an interesting - maybe humorous - and
understandable manner.
I don't give a fig if my nasal cavity is opening and closing like a
toilet flush flap or if my tongue is probing around trying to mate
with the alveolar ridge when I'm speaking that series of words. What
is important is that they are heard for what they are meant to convey.

Yet you seem to have a pretty good idea of what's going on inside all
your cameras, even though there are probably "no user-serviceable parts"
therein.
[...]

Post by Tony Cooper
I've been here longer than you have and more people respond (and read)
to my contributions than yours. This has never been a single-interest
newsgroup, and - God Willing and the creeks don't rise - it never will
be.

What do you think its name means?

That it is about the usage of English - more than about the mechanics
of one particular way of producing English. As evidenced above.

/Anders, Denmark.

[Ross]

Post by Tony Cooper
On Fri, 28 Dec 2018 09:20:47 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Anders D. Nygaard

Post by Peter Moylan
      No matter how you jump and dance
      The last few drops fall in your pants.

ObAUE: Do the last two lines actually rhyme? No /t/ in "pants"?

No, there is very likely a tiny [t] between the [n] and the [s] pf "dance,"
because you're likely to close off the nasal cavity a moment before you
retract the tongue tip from the alveolar ridge (where it is for the [n])
to make the [s].

Good Lord! Such anatomical gyrations to pronounce "dance"?
"Dance" and "pants" rhyme well enough.

Indeed they do -- unless of course you have a different vowel in "dance",
as PaulW is pointing out. But most North Americans don't.

To state it more generally, words which look as if they should end in
-ns normally develop a [t] in between the n and the s. PTD has just given
a phonetic explanation of why this happens.

The result is that there is no contrast between -ns and -nts endings.
"Dance" (and "chance", "advance" etc) rhymes with "pants" (and "ants"
and "rants"). "Mince" and "mince", "dense" and "dents" should be homophones.

I anticipate some people may claim to distinguish -ns from -nts, and may
even do so in very careful, spelling-influenced pronunciation. But I'll
bet they don't in casual speech.

[Isabelle C.]

Le 28/12/2018 23:08, Ross a écrit :

[...]

Post by Ross
The result is that there is no contrast between -ns and -nts endings.
"Dance" (and "chance", "advance" etc) rhymes with "pants" (and "ants"
and "rants"). "Mince" and "mince",

I'm sorry if I'm being a bit dense, but I don't get it. "Mince",
"mince"? Shouldn't they rhyme anyway? Maybe "mints"?


"dense" and "dents" should be homophones.
[...]

[Madrigal Gurneyhalt]

Post by Isabelle C.
[...]

Post by Ross
The result is that there is no contrast between -ns and -nts endings.
"Dance" (and "chance", "advance" etc) rhymes with "pants" (and "ants"
and "rants"). "Mince" and "mince",

I'm sorry if I'm being a bit dense, but I don't get it. "Mince",
"mince"? Shouldn't they rhyme anyway? Maybe "mints"?
"dense" and "dents" should be homophones.
[...]

Should be? Is there some Edict of Pronunciation that I've failed
to notice? I do not speak the words as homophones and have
no intention of starting to do so. And I certainly don't rhyme
"dance" and "pants" in my normal speech.

[s***@my-deja.com]

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Isabelle C.

Post by Ross
The result is that there is no contrast between -ns and -nts endings.
"Dance" (and "chance", "advance" etc) rhymes with "pants" (and "ants"
and "rants"). "Mince" and "mince",

I'm sorry if I'm being a bit dense, but I don't get it. "Mince",
"mince"? Shouldn't they rhyme anyway? Maybe "mints"?
"dense" and "dents" should be homophones.

Should be? Is there some Edict of Pronunciation that I've failed
to notice? I do not speak the words as homophones and have
no intention of starting to do so. And I certainly don't rhyme
"dance" and "pants" in my normal speech.

Three points.
1 Normal pronunciation where YOU live
2 Rhyme/doggerel/poetry accept near-misses if funny/apt enough.
3 Clarity of meaning.

The liquid was very dents?
He was a bit dents and did not see the dense in the car door?
Culinary disaster:- Two mints in the mince.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Isabelle C.

Post by Ross
The result is that there is no contrast between -ns and -nts endings.
"Dance" (and "chance", "advance" etc) rhymes with "pants" (and "ants"
and "rants"). "Mince" and "mince",

I'm sorry if I'm being a bit dense, but I don't get it. "Mince",
"mince"? Shouldn't they rhyme anyway? Maybe "mints"?
"dense" and "dents" should be homophones.

Yes. Ross performed a typographic error.

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Should be? Is there some Edict of Pronunciation that I've failed
to notice?

Do you share Tony Cooper's attitude toward the facts of phonetics?
It simply _is_ the case that it would be very difficult to pronounce
the sequence -ns- (in the same syllable) without some [t] intervening.

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
I do not speak the words as homophones and have
no intention of starting to do so. And I certainly don't rhyme
"dance" and "pants" in my normal speech.

Yeah, yeah, the TRAP-BATH-PALM split. Utterly irrelevant.

[Madrigal Gurneyhalt]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Isabelle C.

Post by Ross
The result is that there is no contrast between -ns and -nts endings.
"Dance" (and "chance", "advance" etc) rhymes with "pants" (and "ants"
and "rants"). "Mince" and "mince",

I'm sorry if I'm being a bit dense, but I don't get it. "Mince",
"mince"? Shouldn't they rhyme anyway? Maybe "mints"?
"dense" and "dents" should be homophones.

Yes. Ross performed a typographic error.

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Should be? Is there some Edict of Pronunciation that I've failed
to notice?

Do you share Tony Cooper's attitude toward the facts of phonetics?
It simply _is_ the case that it would be very difficult to pronounce
the sequence -ns- (in the same syllable) without some [t] intervening.

If Tony's attitude is that real life speakers trump theoretical then
I guess I must. Whatever, there is a discernible difference between
my pronunciations of 'dense' and 'dents'. I do not personally
consider this in any way odd but I am happy to claim my spot as
an extraordinary human being if you linguists want to maintain
that it is some kind of unique achievement!

[Tony Cooper]

On Sat, 29 Dec 2018 07:34:19 -0800 (PST), Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Isabelle C.

Post by Ross
The result is that there is no contrast between -ns and -nts endings.
"Dance" (and "chance", "advance" etc) rhymes with "pants" (and "ants"
and "rants"). "Mince" and "mince",

I'm sorry if I'm being a bit dense, but I don't get it. "Mince",
"mince"? Shouldn't they rhyme anyway? Maybe "mints"?
"dense" and "dents" should be homophones.

Yes. Ross performed a typographic error.

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Should be? Is there some Edict of Pronunciation that I've failed
to notice?

Do you share Tony Cooper's attitude toward the facts of phonetics?
It simply _is_ the case that it would be very difficult to pronounce
the sequence -ns- (in the same syllable) without some [t] intervening.

If Tony's attitude is that real life speakers trump theoretical then
I guess I must. Whatever, there is a discernible difference between
my pronunciations of 'dense' and 'dents'. I do not personally
consider this in any way odd but I am happy to claim my spot as
an extraordinary human being if you linguists want to maintain
that it is some kind of unique achievement!

Tony's attitude, as expressed here, is that the ability to string
words together in meaningful, interesting, and informative sentences
is more important to him than the anatomical gyrations involved in
speaking those words.

I have no idea what PTD means by the "facts of phonetics".

[Jerry Friedman]

Post by Tony Cooper
On Sat, 29 Dec 2018 07:34:19 -0800 (PST), Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Isabelle C.

Post by Ross
The result is that there is no contrast between -ns and -nts endings.
"Dance" (and "chance", "advance" etc) rhymes with "pants" (and "ants"
and "rants"). "Mince" and "mince",

I'm sorry if I'm being a bit dense, but I don't get it. "Mince",
"mince"? Shouldn't they rhyme anyway? Maybe "mints"?
"dense" and "dents" should be homophones.

Yes. Ross performed a typographic error.

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Should be? Is there some Edict of Pronunciation that I've failed
to notice?

Do you share Tony Cooper's attitude toward the facts of phonetics?
It simply _is_ the case that it would be very difficult to pronounce
the sequence -ns- (in the same syllable) without some [t] intervening.

If Tony's attitude is that real life speakers trump theoretical then
I guess I must. Whatever, there is a discernible difference between
my pronunciations of 'dense' and 'dents'. I do not personally
consider this in any way odd but I am happy to claim my spot as
an extraordinary human being if you linguists want to maintain
that it is some kind of unique achievement!

Tony's attitude, as expressed here, is that the ability to string
words together in meaningful, interesting, and informative sentences
is more important to him than the anatomical gyrations involved in
speaking those words.

…

As long as his attitude includes the awareness that a foreigner
interested in learning good English pronunciations might be quite
interested in those gyrations.

[Katy Jennison]

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Tony Cooper
On Sat, 29 Dec 2018 07:34:19 -0800 (PST), Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Isabelle C.

Post by Ross
The result is that there is no contrast between -ns and -nts endings.
"Dance" (and "chance", "advance" etc) rhymes with "pants" (and "ants"
and "rants"). "Mince" and "mince",

I'm sorry if I'm being a bit dense, but I don't get it. "Mince",
"mince"? Shouldn't they rhyme anyway? Maybe "mints"?
"dense" and "dents" should be homophones.

Yes. Ross performed a typographic error.

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Should be? Is there some Edict of Pronunciation that I've failed
to notice?

Do you share Tony Cooper's attitude toward the facts of phonetics?
It simply _is_ the case that it would be very difficult to pronounce
the sequence -ns- (in the same syllable) without some [t] intervening.

If Tony's attitude is that real life speakers trump theoretical then
I guess I must. Whatever, there is a discernible difference between
my pronunciations of 'dense' and 'dents'. I do not personally
consider this in any way odd but I am happy to claim my spot as
an extraordinary human being if you linguists want to maintain
that it is some kind of unique achievement!

Tony's attitude, as expressed here, is that the ability to string
words together in meaningful, interesting, and informative sentences
is more important to him than the anatomical gyrations involved in
speaking those words.

…
As long as his attitude includes the awareness that a foreigner
interested in learning good English pronunciations might be quite
interested in those gyrations.

As long as everyone keeps in mind that this newsgroup has "usage" in the
title, usage being assumed to include, in Tony's words, the ability to
string words together in meaningful, interesting, and informative
sentences. True, we keep going off-topic into areas such as the
quiddity of a muffin or a fish-slice, or the phonetics of "dance", but
these are both strictly digressions, however enjoyable and however much
most of us stay here for exactly these discussions. It might even be
argued that the fish-slice discussion is far more about English *usage*
than the threads about alveolar ridges and the like.

[Tony Cooper]

On Sat, 29 Dec 2018 08:27:23 -0800 (PST), Jerry Friedman

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Tony Cooper
On Sat, 29 Dec 2018 07:34:19 -0800 (PST), Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Isabelle C.

Post by Ross
The result is that there is no contrast between -ns and -nts endings.
"Dance" (and "chance", "advance" etc) rhymes with "pants" (and "ants"
and "rants"). "Mince" and "mince",

I'm sorry if I'm being a bit dense, but I don't get it. "Mince",
"mince"? Shouldn't they rhyme anyway? Maybe "mints"?
"dense" and "dents" should be homophones.

Yes. Ross performed a typographic error.

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Should be? Is there some Edict of Pronunciation that I've failed
to notice?

Do you share Tony Cooper's attitude toward the facts of phonetics?
It simply _is_ the case that it would be very difficult to pronounce
the sequence -ns- (in the same syllable) without some [t] intervening.

If Tony's attitude is that real life speakers trump theoretical then
I guess I must. Whatever, there is a discernible difference between
my pronunciations of 'dense' and 'dents'. I do not personally
consider this in any way odd but I am happy to claim my spot as
an extraordinary human being if you linguists want to maintain
that it is some kind of unique achievement!

Tony's attitude, as expressed here, is that the ability to string
words together in meaningful, interesting, and informative sentences
is more important to him than the anatomical gyrations involved in
speaking those words.

…
As long as his attitude includes the awareness that a foreigner
interested in learning good English pronunciations might be quite
interested in those gyrations.

When some aspect said to be "more important" it does not in any way
restrict awareness of other aspects. It simply relegates the aspects
to an order of interest.

This part of the discussion has been about what qualifies one to
participate in alt.english.usage. Questions from NNSs about
pronunciation are few and far between. Most of their questions are
about the meaning and acceptability of words in example context.

PTD challenges my qualifications to participate in this group because
I don't have an interest in the anatomical gyrations of pronunciation
and the representation of pronunciation by the IPA. He has a
ridiculously narrow view of what "usage" is .

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Tony Cooper
On Sat, 29 Dec 2018 08:27:23 -0800 (PST), Jerry Friedman

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Tony Cooper
On Sat, 29 Dec 2018 07:34:19 -0800 (PST), Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Isabelle C.

Post by Ross
The result is that there is no contrast between -ns and -nts endings.
"Dance" (and "chance", "advance" etc) rhymes with "pants" (and "ants"
and "rants"). "Mince" and "mince",

I'm sorry if I'm being a bit dense, but I don't get it. "Mince",
"mince"? Shouldn't they rhyme anyway? Maybe "mints"?
"dense" and "dents" should be homophones.

Yes. Ross performed a typographic error.

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Should be? Is there some Edict of Pronunciation that I've failed
to notice?

Do you share Tony Cooper's attitude toward the facts of phonetics?
It simply _is_ the case that it would be very difficult to pronounce
the sequence -ns- (in the same syllable) without some [t] intervening.

If Tony's attitude is that real life speakers trump theoretical then
I guess I must. Whatever, there is a discernible difference between
my pronunciations of 'dense' and 'dents'. I do not personally
consider this in any way odd but I am happy to claim my spot as
an extraordinary human being if you linguists want to maintain
that it is some kind of unique achievement!

Tony's attitude, as expressed here, is that the ability to string
words together in meaningful, interesting, and informative sentences
is more important to him than the anatomical gyrations involved in
speaking those words.

As long as his attitude includes the awareness that a foreigner
interested in learning good English pronunciations might be quite
interested in those gyrations.

When some aspect said to be "more important" it does not in any way
restrict awareness of other aspects. It simply relegates the aspects
to an order of interest.
This part of the discussion has been about what qualifies one to
participate in alt.english.usage. Questions from NNSs about
pronunciation are few and far between. Most of their questions are
about the meaning and acceptability of words in example context.
PTD challenges my qualifications to participate in this group because
I don't have an interest in the anatomical gyrations of pronunciation
and the representation of pronunciation by the IPA. He has a
ridiculously narrow view of what "usage" is .

When has Tony Cooper ever shown interest in the usage of English -- as
opposed to which aspects of realia are present in Central Florida and
which are present on BBC America?

[Katy Jennison]

Post by Peter T. Daniels
When has Tony Cooper ever shown interest in the usage of English -- as
opposed to which aspects of realia are present in Central Florida and
which are present on BBC America?

Practically every day.

[Anders D. Nygaard]

Post by Tony Cooper
On Sat, 29 Dec 2018 08:27:23 -0800 (PST), Jerry Friedman

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Tony Cooper
On Sat, 29 Dec 2018 07:34:19 -0800 (PST), Madrigal Gurneyhalt
[...] Whatever, there is a discernible difference between

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
my pronunciations of 'dense' and 'dents'. I do not personally
consider this in any way odd but I am happy to claim my spot as
an extraordinary human being if you linguists want to maintain
that it is some kind of unique achievement!

See below.

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Tony Cooper
Tony's attitude, as expressed here, is that the ability to string
words together in meaningful, interesting, and informative sentences
is more important to him than the anatomical gyrations involved in
speaking those words.

…
As long as his attitude includes the awareness that a foreigner
interested in learning good English pronunciations might be quite
interested in those gyrations.

When some aspect said to be "more important" it does not in any way
restrict awareness of other aspects. It simply relegates the aspects
to an order of interest.
This part of the discussion has been about what qualifies one to
participate in alt.english.usage.

Different people have different qualifications. And interests.

Post by Tony Cooper
Questions from NNSs about
pronunciation are few and far between.

Possibly, but this discussion about "anatomical gyrations" has helped
throwing light on *why* this particular issue of pronunciation surprised
me - and Madrigal for that matter (introspection about phonetics is
surprisingly hard).

Post by Tony Cooper
Most of their questions are
about the meaning and acceptability of words in example context.

We do have one very prolific asker, yes.

/Anders, Denmark.

[Katy Jennison]

Post by Anders D. Nygaard

Post by Tony Cooper
This part of the discussion has been about what qualifies one to
participate in alt.english.usage.

Different people have different qualifications. And interests.

Wait, we need qualifications? Oh dear. Another memo I must have missed.

[Sam Plusnet]

Post by Anders D. Nygaard

Post by Tony Cooper
This part of the discussion has been about what qualifies one to
participate in alt.english.usage.

Different people have different qualifications. And interests.

Wait, we need qualifications?  Oh dear.  Another memo I must have missed.

All of my successes have been qualified.

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by Katy Jennison

Post by Anders D. Nygaard

Post by Tony Cooper
This part of the discussion has been about what qualifies one to
participate in alt.english.usage.

Different people have different qualifications. And interests.

Wait, we need qualifications? Oh dear. Another memo I must have missed.

The non-existent committee issues invisible memos,

Jan

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Tony Cooper
On Sat, 29 Dec 2018 07:34:19 -0800 (PST), Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Isabelle C.

Post by Ross
The result is that there is no contrast between -ns and -nts endings.
"Dance" (and "chance", "advance" etc) rhymes with "pants" (and "ants"
and "rants"). "Mince" and "mince",

I'm sorry if I'm being a bit dense, but I don't get it. "Mince",
"mince"? Shouldn't they rhyme anyway? Maybe "mints"?
"dense" and "dents" should be homophones.

Yes. Ross performed a typographic error.

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Should be? Is there some Edict of Pronunciation that I've failed
to notice?

Do you share Tony Cooper's attitude toward the facts of phonetics?
It simply _is_ the case that it would be very difficult to pronounce
the sequence -ns- (in the same syllable) without some [t] intervening.

If Tony's attitude is that real life speakers trump theoretical then
I guess I must. Whatever, there is a discernible difference between
my pronunciations of 'dense' and 'dents'. I do not personally
consider this in any way odd but I am happy to claim my spot as
an extraordinary human being if you linguists want to maintain
that it is some kind of unique achievement!

Tony's attitude, as expressed here, is that the ability to string
words together in meaningful, interesting, and informative sentences
is more important to him than the anatomical gyrations involved in
speaking those words.
I have no idea what PTD means by the "facts of phonetics".

What Tony Cooper dubbed "anatomical gyrations." Apparently he fails to
understand that without the "anatomical gyrations" there would be no
"meaningful, interesting, and informative sentences."

[Tony Cooper]

On Sat, 29 Dec 2018 11:22:25 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Tony Cooper
On Sat, 29 Dec 2018 07:34:19 -0800 (PST), Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Isabelle C.

Post by Ross
The result is that there is no contrast between -ns and -nts endings.
"Dance" (and "chance", "advance" etc) rhymes with "pants" (and "ants"
and "rants"). "Mince" and "mince",

I'm sorry if I'm being a bit dense, but I don't get it. "Mince",
"mince"? Shouldn't they rhyme anyway? Maybe "mints"?
"dense" and "dents" should be homophones.

Yes. Ross performed a typographic error.

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Should be? Is there some Edict of Pronunciation that I've failed
to notice?

Do you share Tony Cooper's attitude toward the facts of phonetics?
It simply _is_ the case that it would be very difficult to pronounce
the sequence -ns- (in the same syllable) without some [t] intervening.

If Tony's attitude is that real life speakers trump theoretical then
I guess I must. Whatever, there is a discernible difference between
my pronunciations of 'dense' and 'dents'. I do not personally
consider this in any way odd but I am happy to claim my spot as
an extraordinary human being if you linguists want to maintain
that it is some kind of unique achievement!

Tony's attitude, as expressed here, is that the ability to string
words together in meaningful, interesting, and informative sentences
is more important to him than the anatomical gyrations involved in
speaking those words.
I have no idea what PTD means by the "facts of phonetics".

What Tony Cooper dubbed "anatomical gyrations." Apparently he fails to
understand that without the "anatomical gyrations" there would be no
"meaningful, interesting, and informative sentences."

Oh, I *understand* but I don't think them to be something I need to
give much consideration to. Those gyrations are much like the ones
that are used in walking. One does not need to give conscious thought
to the internal bits that allow one to walk from here to there to
successfully make the journey.

I also understand that what I consider to be something one should give
conscious thought to is not what everyone considers to be of the same
importance. You, evidently, do not share that equanimity.

[Ross]

Post by Tony Cooper
On Sat, 29 Dec 2018 07:34:19 -0800 (PST), Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Isabelle C.

Post by Ross
The result is that there is no contrast between -ns and -nts endings.
"Dance" (and "chance", "advance" etc) rhymes with "pants" (and "ants"
and "rants"). "Mince" and "mince",

I'm sorry if I'm being a bit dense, but I don't get it. "Mince",
"mince"? Shouldn't they rhyme anyway? Maybe "mints"?
"dense" and "dents" should be homophones.

Yes. Ross performed a typographic error.

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Should be? Is there some Edict of Pronunciation that I've failed
to notice?

Do you share Tony Cooper's attitude toward the facts of phonetics?
It simply _is_ the case that it would be very difficult to pronounce
the sequence -ns- (in the same syllable) without some [t] intervening.

If Tony's attitude is that real life speakers trump theoretical then
I guess I must. Whatever, there is a discernible difference between
my pronunciations of 'dense' and 'dents'. I do not personally
consider this in any way odd but I am happy to claim my spot as
an extraordinary human being if you linguists want to maintain
that it is some kind of unique achievement!

Tony's attitude, as expressed here, is that the ability to string
words together in meaningful, interesting, and informative sentences
is more important to him than the anatomical gyrations involved in
speaking those words.

That's fine, too. Nobody (I hope) wants to compel you to be interested
in phonetics. Personally, I have no interest in matters of punctuation,
which seem to fascinate many people here. We can still get along.

Post by Tony Cooper
I have no idea what PTD means by the "facts of phonetics".

It's those gyrations.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Isabelle C.

Post by Ross
The result is that there is no contrast between -ns and -nts endings.
"Dance" (and "chance", "advance" etc) rhymes with "pants" (and "ants"
and "rants"). "Mince" and "mince",

I'm sorry if I'm being a bit dense, but I don't get it. "Mince",
"mince"? Shouldn't they rhyme anyway? Maybe "mints"?
"dense" and "dents" should be homophones.

Yes. Ross performed a typographic error.

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Should be? Is there some Edict of Pronunciation that I've failed
to notice?

Do you share Tony Cooper's attitude toward the facts of phonetics?
It simply _is_ the case that it would be very difficult to pronounce
the sequence -ns- (in the same syllable) without some [t] intervening.

If Tony's attitude is that real life speakers trump theoretical then

No, it's that facts about language are not interesting.

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
I guess I must. Whatever, there is a discernible difference between
my pronunciations of 'dense' and 'dents'. I do not personally
consider this in any way odd but I am happy to claim my spot as
an extraordinary human being if you linguists want to maintain
that it is some kind of unique achievement!

Of course you can't _hear_ the similarity, because you are conditioned
by both the spelling and the phonemics.

[Madrigal Gurneyhalt]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Isabelle C.

Post by Ross
The result is that there is no contrast between -ns and -nts endings.
"Dance" (and "chance", "advance" etc) rhymes with "pants" (and "ants"
and "rants"). "Mince" and "mince",

I'm sorry if I'm being a bit dense, but I don't get it. "Mince",
"mince"? Shouldn't they rhyme anyway? Maybe "mints"?
"dense" and "dents" should be homophones.

Yes. Ross performed a typographic error.

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Should be? Is there some Edict of Pronunciation that I've failed
to notice?

Do you share Tony Cooper's attitude toward the facts of phonetics?
It simply _is_ the case that it would be very difficult to pronounce
the sequence -ns- (in the same syllable) without some [t] intervening.

If Tony's attitude is that real life speakers trump theoretical then

No, it's that facts about language are not interesting.

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
I guess I must. Whatever, there is a discernible difference between
my pronunciations of 'dense' and 'dents'. I do not personally
consider this in any way odd but I am happy to claim my spot as
an extraordinary human being if you linguists want to maintain
that it is some kind of unique achievement!

Of course you can't _hear_ the similarity, because you are conditioned
by both the spelling and the phonemics.

If it helps you sleep at night to believe that then be my guest!

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

On Sat, 29 Dec 2018 04:24:26 -0800 (PST), Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Isabelle C.
[...]

Post by Ross
The result is that there is no contrast between -ns and -nts endings.
"Dance" (and "chance", "advance" etc) rhymes with "pants" (and "ants"
and "rants"). "Mince" and "mince",

I'm sorry if I'm being a bit dense, but I don't get it. "Mince",
"mince"? Shouldn't they rhyme anyway? Maybe "mints"?
"dense" and "dents" should be homophones.
[...]

Should be? Is there some Edict of Pronunciation that I've failed
to notice? I do not speak the words as homophones and have
no intention of starting to do so. And I certainly don't rhyme
"dance" and "pants" in my normal speech.

They don't rhyme in my normal speech, either.

Ignoring the different "a" sounds, "nce" is not the same sound as "nts".
Similarly "mince" and "mints" sound different.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Sat, 29 Dec 2018 04:24:26 -0800 (PST), Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Isabelle C.
[...]

Post by Ross
The result is that there is no contrast between -ns and -nts endings.
"Dance" (and "chance", "advance" etc) rhymes with "pants" (and "ants">>

Post by Ross
and "rants"). "Mince" and "mince",

I'm sorry if I'm being a bit dense, but I don't get it. "Mince",
"mince"? Shouldn't they rhyme anyway? Maybe "mints"?
"dense" and "dents" should be homophones.
[...]

Should be? Is there some Edict of Pronunciation that I've failed
to notice? I do not speak the words as homophones and have
no intention of starting to do so. And I certainly don't rhyme
"dance" and "pants" in my normal speech.

They don't rhyme in my normal speech, either.

Nor in mine, but that's because of the totally different vowels.

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Ignoring the different "a" sounds, "nce" is not the same sound as "nts".
Similarly "mince" and "mints" sound different.

I think you need to say "mince" very carefully to make them different.

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

On Sat, 29 Dec 2018 19:41:58 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Sat, 29 Dec 2018 04:24:26 -0800 (PST), Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Isabelle C.
[...]

Post by Ross
The result is that there is no contrast between -ns and -nts endings.
"Dance" (and "chance", "advance" etc) rhymes with "pants" (and "ants">>

Post by Ross
and "rants"). "Mince" and "mince",

I'm sorry if I'm being a bit dense, but I don't get it. "Mince",
"mince"? Shouldn't they rhyme anyway? Maybe "mints"?
"dense" and "dents" should be homophones.
[...]

Should be? Is there some Edict of Pronunciation that I've failed
to notice? I do not speak the words as homophones and have
no intention of starting to do so. And I certainly don't rhyme
"dance" and "pants" in my normal speech.

They don't rhyme in my normal speech, either.

Nor in mine, but that's because of the totally different vowels.

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Ignoring the different "a" sounds, "nce" is not the same sound as "nts".
Similarly "mince" and "mints" sound different.

I think you need to say "mince" very carefully to make them different.

It is possible that they sound very similar. However I've just tried
saying them and discovered a difference in the position of my tongue.
In "mince" the tongue is resting with the tip next to the lower teeth.
In "mints" the tongue definitely rises briefly to touch the aveolar
ridge.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Sat, 29 Dec 2018 19:41:58 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Ignoring the different "a" sounds, "nce" is not the same sound as "nts".
Similarly "mince" and "mints" sound different.

I think you need to say "mince" very carefully to make them different.

It is possible that they sound very similar. However I've just tried
saying them and discovered a difference in the position of my tongue.
In "mince" the tongue is resting with the tip next to the lower teeth.

I find that the latter gives a bit of a lisp to the s!

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
In "mints" the tongue definitely rises briefly to touch the aveolar
ridge.

[John Varela]

On Sat, 29 Dec 2018 19:08:19 UTC, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Sat, 29 Dec 2018 19:41:58 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Sat, 29 Dec 2018 04:24:26 -0800 (PST), Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Isabelle C.
[...]

Post by Ross
The result is that there is no contrast between -ns and -nts endings.
"Dance" (and "chance", "advance" etc) rhymes with "pants" (and "ants">>

Post by Ross
and "rants"). "Mince" and "mince",

I'm sorry if I'm being a bit dense, but I don't get it. "Mince",
"mince"? Shouldn't they rhyme anyway? Maybe "mints"?
"dense" and "dents" should be homophones.
[...]

Should be? Is there some Edict of Pronunciation that I've failed
to notice? I do not speak the words as homophones and have
no intention of starting to do so. And I certainly don't rhyme
"dance" and "pants" in my normal speech.

They don't rhyme in my normal speech, either.

Nor in mine, but that's because of the totally different vowels.

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Ignoring the different "a" sounds, "nce" is not the same sound as "nts".
Similarly "mince" and "mints" sound different.

I think you need to say "mince" very carefully to make them different.

It is possible that they sound very similar. However I've just tried
saying them and discovered a difference in the position of my tongue.
In "mince" the tongue is resting with the tip next to the lower teeth.
In "mints" the tongue definitely rises briefly to touch the aveolar
ridge.

Me too. And as I mentioned in another post, in my case that while
mince = mins (pronounced not quite the same as a shortening of
"minutes", the [s] sound being lengthened) while in mints the [t] is
just barely audible so that the result approaches being minz. I
don't know how better to describe it, because I am illiterate in
IPA.

[Ken Blake]

On Sat, 29 Dec 2018 18:15:11 +0000, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Sat, 29 Dec 2018 04:24:26 -0800 (PST), Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Isabelle C.
[...]

Post by Ross
The result is that there is no contrast between -ns and -nts endings.
"Dance" (and "chance", "advance" etc) rhymes with "pants" (and "ants"
and "rants"). "Mince" and "mince",

I'm sorry if I'm being a bit dense, but I don't get it. "Mince",
"mince"? Shouldn't they rhyme anyway? Maybe "mints"?
"dense" and "dents" should be homophones.
[...]

Should be? Is there some Edict of Pronunciation that I've failed
to notice? I do not speak the words as homophones and have
no intention of starting to do so. And I certainly don't rhyme
"dance" and "pants" in my normal speech.

They don't rhyme in my normal speech, either.
Ignoring the different "a" sounds,

In the US, at least in the parts of the US I'm familiar with, the "a"
sounds are the same.

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
"nce" is not the same sound as "nts".

Right, it's not. But for many English speakers, including, me, at
least most of the time, the "t" in "nts" isn't pronounced. Or if it is
pronounced, it's pronounced so slightly that it can barely be heard.

It's not a perfect rhyme, but as far as I'm concerned, for all
practical purposes they do rhyme. Poetry by great English poets is
filled with many rhymes that are less perfect than this one.

I just took a look at several Shakespearean sonnets for examples. In
six sonnets I found four rhymes that to me were imperfect.

Yes, not everything was pronounced the same way in Shakespeare's day
as it now, so some of what I think of as imperfect may have been
perfect back then. But not all of it. As an example, almost certainly
the rhyme of "idolatry" and "praises be" in sonnet 105 was imperfect
even to Shakespeare.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by Ken Blake
On Sat, 29 Dec 2018 18:15:11 +0000, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
[ … ]
"nce" is not the same sound as "nts".

Right, it's not. But for many English speakers, including, me, at
least most of the time, the "t" in "nts" isn't pronounced. Or if it is
pronounced, it's pronounced so slightly that it can barely be heard.

Time for a trip down memory lane. When I was about 8 or 9 my older
sister and I invented a very silly game that involved choosing some
names for racehorses and then running races, deciding the winner, not
on the basis of a dice or a card, but just deciding which one had one.
Anyway, she suggested "Prince" as the name of a horse, which I duly
wrote down as "Prints".

Post by Ken Blake
--

athel

[Ken Blake]

On Sat, 29 Dec 2018 22:10:14 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Time for a trip down memory lane. When I was about 8 or 9 my older
sister and I invented a very silly game that involved choosing some
names for racehorses and then running races, deciding the winner, not
on the basis of a dice or a card, but just deciding which one had one.
Anyway, she suggested "Prince" as the name of a horse, which I duly
wrote down as "Prints".

A few years ago I gave a talk to several groups on the topic of
printmaking (etchings, engravings, drypoint, woodcuts, lithographs,
serigraphs). I called my talk "Someday My Prints Will Come."

[bill van]

Post by Ken Blake
On Sat, 29 Dec 2018 22:10:14 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Time for a trip down memory lane. When I was about 8 or 9 my
older>sister and I invented a very silly game that involved choosing
some>names for racehorses and then running races, deciding the winner,
not>on the basis of a dice or a card, but just deciding which one had
one.>Anyway, she suggested "Prince" as the name of a horse, which I
duly>wrote down as "Prints".

A few years ago I gave a talk to several groups on the topic of
printmaking (etchings, engravings, drypoint, woodcuts, lithographs,
serigraphs). I called my talk "Someday My Prints Will Come."

Photography students at Ryerson Polytech -- now Ryerson U -- in Toronto
had access to a colour film
processing unit called a Kreonite machine. My wife, who studied at "Rye
High" in the 1970s,
reports that every new class reinvented the "Someday my prints will come" joke.

bill

[RHDraney]

Post by bill van

Post by Ken Blake
On Sat, 29 Dec 2018 22:10:14 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Time for a trip down memory lane. When I was about 8 or 9 my
older>sister and I invented a very silly game that involved choosing
some>names for racehorses and then running races, deciding the
winner, not>on the basis of a dice or a card, but just deciding which
one had one.>Anyway, she suggested "Prince" as the name of a horse,
which I duly>wrote down as "Prints".

A few years ago I gave a talk to several groups on the topic of
printmaking (etchings, engravings, drypoint, woodcuts, lithographs,
serigraphs). I called my talk "Someday My Prints Will Come."

Photography students at Ryerson Polytech -- now Ryerson U -- in Toronto
had access to a colour film
processing unit called a Kreonite machine. My wife, who studied at "Rye
High" in the 1970s,
reports that every new class reinvented the "Someday my prints will come" joke.

And then there was the time the Animaniacs tried to solve a robbery on a
cruise ship:

....r

[Quinn C]

Post by bill van

Post by Ken Blake
A few years ago I gave a talk to several groups on the topic of
printmaking (etchings, engravings, drypoint, woodcuts, lithographs,
serigraphs). I called my talk "Someday My Prints Will Come."

Photography students at Ryerson Polytech -- now Ryerson U -- in Toronto
had access to a colour film
processing unit called a Kreonite machine. My wife, who studied at "Rye
High" in the 1970s,
reports that every new class reinvented the "Someday my prints will come" joke.

She might know one of my choirmates then, who's told me about that
machine.

[Tak To]

Post by bill van

Post by Ken Blake
On Sat, 29 Dec 2018 22:10:14 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Time for a trip down memory lane. When I was about 8 or 9 my
older>sister and I invented a very silly game that involved choosing
some>names for racehorses and then running races, deciding the winner,
not>on the basis of a dice or a card, but just deciding which one had
one.>Anyway, she suggested "Prince" as the name of a horse, which I
duly>wrote down as "Prints".

A few years ago I gave a talk to several groups on the topic of
printmaking (etchings, engravings, drypoint, woodcuts, lithographs,
serigraphs). I called my talk "Someday My Prints Will Come."

Photography students at Ryerson Polytech -- now Ryerson U -- in Toronto
had access to a colour film
processing unit called a Kreonite machine. My wife, who studied at "Rye
High" in the 1970s,
reports that every new class reinvented the "Someday my prints will come" joke.

I remember making (photo) color prints being very expensive in
those days. How could "Rye High" afford it?

Btw, I am trying to locate the info of a "personal" color print
processing machine that was advertised in photography magazines
back in those days. My recollection is that it was supposed to
use the minimal amount of chemicals by flowing just a thin film
of processing liquid over the prints.

[bill van]

Post by Tak To

Post by bill van

Post by Ken Blake
On Sat, 29 Dec 2018 22:10:14 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Time for a trip down memory lane. When I was about 8 or 9 my
older>sister and I invented a very silly game that involved choosing
some>names for racehorses and then running races, deciding the winner,
not>on the basis of a dice or a card, but just deciding which one had
one.>Anyway, she suggested "Prince" as the name of a horse, which I
duly>wrote down as "Prints".

A few years ago I gave a talk to several groups on the topic of
printmaking (etchings, engravings, drypoint, woodcuts, lithographs,
serigraphs). I called my talk "Someday My Prints Will Come."

Photography students at Ryerson Polytech -- now Ryerson U -- in Toronto
had access to a colour film
processing unit called a Kreonite machine. My wife, who studied at "Rye
High" in the 1970s,
reports that every new class reinvented the "Someday my prints will come" joke.

I remember making (photo) color prints being very expensive in
those days. How could "Rye High" afford it?

It was (and is) the leading applied arts school in Canada. My wife says
its status was about
the same in the 1970s as that of the (now defunct) Brooks Institute in
California. Its tuition fees in the mid-70s
were a little higher than most universities', and it would have had
financial support from the
Ontario government.

Post by Tak To
Btw, I am trying to locate the info of a "personal" color print
processing machine that was advertised in photography magazines
back in those days. My recollection is that it was supposed to
use the minimal amount of chemicals by flowing just a thin film
of processing liquid over the prints.

Can't help with that. All I know of photographic technology is hearsay.

bill

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Time for a trip down memory lane. When I was about 8 or 9 my older
sister and I invented a very silly game that involved choosing some
names for racehorses and then running races, deciding the winner, not
on the basis of a dice or a card, but just deciding which one had one.

Oh dear: just deciding witch won had won

[LFS]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Time for a trip down memory lane. When I was about 8 or 9 my older
sister and I invented a very silly game that involved choosing some
names for racehorses and then running races, deciding the winner, not
on the basis of a dice or a card, but just deciding which one had one.

Oh dear: just deciding witch won had won

Is that a deliberate self-Skittism?

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by LFS

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Time for a trip down memory lane. When I was about 8 or 9 my older
sister and I invented a very silly game that involved choosing some
names for racehorses and then running races, deciding the winner, not
on the basis of a dice or a card, but just deciding which one had one.

Oh dear: just deciding witch won had won

Is that a deliberate self-Skittism?

You could call it that.

[CDB]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Time for a trip down memory lane. When I was about 8 or 9 my older
sister and I invented a very silly game that involved choosing
some names for racehorses and then running races, deciding the
winner, not on the basis of a dice or a card, but just deciding
which one had one.

Oh dear: just deciding witch won had won

So, not "had a name" then.

[Ross]

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Isabelle C.
[...]

Post by Ross
The result is that there is no contrast between -ns and -nts endings.
"Dance" (and "chance", "advance" etc) rhymes with "pants" (and "ants"
and "rants"). "Mince" and "mince",

I'm sorry if I'm being a bit dense, but I don't get it. "Mince",
"mince"? Shouldn't they rhyme anyway? Maybe "mints"?
"dense" and "dents" should be homophones.
[...]

Should be? Is there some Edict of Pronunciation that I've failed
to notice?

No. The modal was used epistemically, not deontically.

I do not speak the words as homophones and have

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
no intention of starting to do so. And I certainly don't rhyme
"dance" and "pants" in my normal speech.

That's fine.

[Paul Carmichael]

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Isabelle C.
[...]

Post by Ross
The result is that there is no contrast between -ns and -nts endings.
"Dance" (and "chance", "advance" etc) rhymes with "pants" (and "ants"
and "rants"). "Mince" and "mince",

I'm sorry if I'm being a bit dense, but I don't get it. "Mince",
"mince"? Shouldn't they rhyme anyway? Maybe "mints"?
"dense" and "dents" should be homophones.
[...]

Should be? Is there some Edict of Pronunciation that I've failed
to notice? I do not speak the words as homophones and have
no intention of starting to do so. And I certainly don't rhyme
"dance" and "pants" in my normal speech.

I believe the pronunciation varies if the word is followed by another.

[Jerry Friedman]

Post by Isabelle C.
[...]

Post by Ross
The result is that there is no contrast between -ns and -nts endings.
"Dance" (and "chance", "advance" etc) rhymes with "pants" (and "ants"
and "rants"). "Mince" and "mince",

I'm sorry if I'm being a bit dense, but I don't get it. "Mince",
"mince"? Shouldn't they rhyme anyway? Maybe "mints"?
"dense" and "dents" should be homophones.

…

They are for me.

Oddly enough, I think I can pronounce Spanish "danza" (in American
Spanish pronunciation, /'dansa/) without a /t/, at least some of
the time.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Isabelle C.

Post by Ross
The result is that there is no contrast between -ns and -nts endings.
"Dance" (and "chance", "advance" etc) rhymes with "pants" (and "ants"
and "rants"). "Mince" and "mince",

I'm sorry if I'm being a bit dense, but I don't get it. "Mince",
"mince"? Shouldn't they rhyme anyway? Maybe "mints"?
"dense" and "dents" should be homophones.

They are for me.
Oddly enough, I think I can pronounce Spanish "danza" (in American
Spanish pronunciation, /'dansa/) without a /t/, at least some of
the time.

Different syllables.

[Jerry Friedman]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Isabelle C.

Post by Ross
The result is that there is no contrast between -ns and -nts endings.
"Dance" (and "chance", "advance" etc) rhymes with "pants" (and "ants"
and "rants"). "Mince" and "mince",

I'm sorry if I'm being a bit dense, but I don't get it. "Mince",
"mince"? Shouldn't they rhyme anyway? Maybe "mints"?
"dense" and "dents" should be homophones.

They are for me.
Oddly enough, I think I can pronounce Spanish "danza" (in American
Spanish pronunciation, /'dansa/) without a /t/, at least some of
the time.

Different syllables.

Pretty sure I have a [t] in "dances".

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Isabelle C.

Post by Ross
The result is that there is no contrast between -ns and -nts endings.
"Dance" (and "chance", "advance" etc) rhymes with "pants" (and "ants">

and "rants"). "Mince" and "mince",> > > I'm sorry if I'm being a

bit dense, but I don't get it. "Mince",

"mince"? Shouldn't they rhyme anyway? Maybe "mints"?
"dense" and "dents" should be homophones.

They are for me.
Oddly enough, I think I can pronounce Spanish "danza" (in American
Spanish pronunciation, /'dansa/) without a /t/, at least some of
the time.

Different syllables.

Pretty sure I have a [t] in "dances".

Me too (me too also for "danza"), by I think Peter is right: syllable
boundaries are important, and word boundaries even more. I don't think
I have any [t] in, say,"I have done singing for this year".

[CDB]

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Isabelle C.

Post by Ross
The result is that there is no contrast between -ns and -nts
endings. "Dance" (and "chance", "advance" etc) rhymes with
"pants" (and "ants" and "rants"). "Mince" and "mince",

I'm sorry if I'm being a bit dense, but I don't get it.
"Mince", "mince"? Shouldn't they rhyme anyway? Maybe "mints"?
"dense" and "dents" should be homophones.

They are for me.
Oddly enough, I think I can pronounce Spanish "danza" (in
American Spanish pronunciation, /'dansa/) without a /t/, at least
some of the time.

Different syllables.

Pretty sure I have a [t] in "dances".

Both noun and verb? I find I say the first with [t], the second without.

[Jerry Friedman]

Post by CDB

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Isabelle C.

Post by Ross
The result is that there is no contrast between -ns and -nts
endings. "Dance" (and "chance", "advance" etc) rhymes with
"pants" (and "ants" and "rants"). "Mince" and "mince",

I'm sorry if I'm being a bit dense, but I don't get it.
"Mince", "mince"? Shouldn't they rhyme anyway? Maybe "mints"?
"dense" and "dents" should be homophones.

They are for me.
Oddly enough, I think I can pronounce Spanish "danza" (in
American Spanish pronunciation, /'dansa/) without a /t/, at least
some of the time.

Different syllables.

Pretty sure I have a [t] in "dances".

Both noun and verb? I find I say the first with [t], the second without.

I'm getting less sure, but I'm fairly sure your distinction is weird.

Have we just figured out how we can know the dancer from the dantce?

[CDB]

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by CDB

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Isabelle C.

Post by Ross
The result is that there is no contrast between -ns and
-nts endings. "Dance" (and "chance", "advance" etc)
rhymes with "pants" (and "ants" and "rants"). "Mince" and
"mince",

I'm sorry if I'm being a bit dense, but I don't get it.
"Mince", "mince"? Shouldn't they rhyme anyway? Maybe
"mints"? "dense" and "dents" should be homophones.

They are for me.
Oddly enough, I think I can pronounce Spanish "danza" (in
American Spanish pronunciation, /'dansa/) without a /t/, at
least some of the time.

Different syllables.

Pretty sure I have a [t] in "dances".

Both noun and verb? I find I say the first with [t], the second without.

I'm getting less sure, but I'm fairly sure your distinction is
weird.
Have we just figured out how we can know the dancer from the dantce?

I surmise that I learned the noun as [d&nts], so that the open vowel in
the bisyllabic form didn't make a change.

O roasting Julgeflügel, o sizzling glands, how can we know the Ganser
from the Gans?

[Ross]

Post by Isabelle C.
[...]

Post by Ross
The result is that there is no contrast between -ns and -nts endings.
"Dance" (and "chance", "advance" etc) rhymes with "pants" (and "ants"
and "rants"). "Mince" and "mince",

I'm sorry if I'm being a bit dense, but I don't get it. "Mince",
"mince"? Shouldn't they rhyme anyway? Maybe "mints"?

Oops. Yes.

Post by Isabelle C.
"dense" and "dents" should be homophones.
[...]
--
Isabelle

[Anders D. Nygaard]

Post by Ross

Post by Tony Cooper
[...]
"Dance" and "pants" rhyme well enough.

But not perfectly?

Post by Ross
Indeed they do -- unless of course you have a different vowel in "dance",
as PaulW is pointing out. But most North Americans don't.
To state it more generally, words which look as if they should end in
-ns normally develop a [t] in between the n and the s. PTD has just given
a phonetic explanation of why this happens.
The result is that there is no contrast between -ns and -nts endings.
"Dance" (and "chance", "advance" etc) rhymes with "pants" (and "ants"
and "rants"). "Mince" and "mince", "dense" and "dents" should be homophones.

Thank you for the good examples (with the obvious misprint corrected).
(And PTD for the phonetic background).

Post by Ross
I anticipate some people may claim to distinguish -ns from -nts, and may
even do so in very careful, spelling-influenced pronunciation. But I'll
bet they don't in casual speech.

Quite.

/Anders, Denmark.

[Sam Plusnet]

Post by Tony Cooper
On Fri, 28 Dec 2018 09:20:47 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Anders D. Nygaard

Post by Peter Moylan
      No matter how you jump and dance
      The last few drops fall in your pants.

ObAUE: Do the last two lines actually rhyme? No /t/ in "pants"?

No, there is very likely a tiny [t] between the [n] and the [s] pf "dance,"
because you're likely to close off the nasal cavity a moment before you
retract the tongue tip from the alveolar ridge (where it is for the [n])
to make the [s].

Good Lord! Such anatomical gyrations to pronounce "dance"?
"Dance" and "pants" rhyme well enough.

M'Lud!
May I introduce evidence to support this contention?

[phil]

Post by Sam Plusnet

Post by Tony Cooper
On Fri, 28 Dec 2018 09:20:47 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Anders D. Nygaard

        No matter how you jump and dance
        The last few drops fall in your pants.

ObAUE: Do the last two lines actually rhyme? No /t/ in "pants"?

No, there is very likely a tiny [t] between the [n] and the [s] pf "dance,"
because you're likely to close off the nasal cavity a moment before you
retract the tongue tip from the alveolar ridge (where it is for the [n])
to make the [s].

Good Lord!  Such anatomical gyrations to pronounce "dance"?
"Dance" and "pants" rhyme well enough.

M'Lud!
May I introduce evidence to support this contention?
http://youtu.be/h7pAxfQDNec

Or more recently:

[John Varela]

On Fri, 28 Dec 2018 18:09:05 UTC, Tony Cooper

Post by Tony Cooper
On Fri, 28 Dec 2018 09:20:47 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Anders D. Nygaard

Post by Peter Moylan
      No matter how you jump and dance
      The last few drops fall in your pants.

ObAUE: Do the last two lines actually rhyme? No /t/ in "pants"?

No, there is very likely a tiny [t] between the [n] and the [s] pf "dance,"
because you're likely to close off the nasal cavity a moment before you
retract the tongue tip from the alveolar ridge (where it is for the [n])
to make the [s].

Good Lord! Such anatomical gyrations to pronounce "dance"?
"Dance" and "pants" rhyme well enough.

When I pronounce "pants" my tongue does touch the roof of my mouth
(OK, the alveolar ridge if you insist) but the [t] is not really
pronounced. It sort of changes the [s] into almost a [z].

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by John Varela
On Fri, 28 Dec 2018 18:09:05 UTC, Tony Cooper

Post by Tony Cooper
On Fri, 28 Dec 2018 09:20:47 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Anders D. Nygaard

Post by Peter Moylan
      No matter how you jump and dance
      The last few drops fall in your pants.

ObAUE: Do the last two lines actually rhyme? No /t/ in "pants"?

No, there is very likely a tiny [t] between the [n] and the [s] pf "dance,"
because you're likely to close off the nasal cavity a moment before you
retract the tongue tip from the alveolar ridge (where it is for the [n])
to make the [s].

Good Lord! Such anatomical gyrations to pronounce "dance"?
"Dance" and "pants" rhyme well enough.

When I pronounce "pants" my tongue does touch the roof of my mouth
(OK, the alveolar ridge if you insist) but the [t] is not really
pronounced. It sort of changes the [s] into almost a [z].

No, it doesn't. What changes the [s] into almost a [z] is the slight
mistiming of "Voice Onset Time," or VOT. (Arthur Abramson's obituary
in the latest issue of *Language* tells us that he invented that term.)

What the vocal cords are doing is independent of what the tongue-tip is
doing, though ideally they are perfectly synchronized. The precision of
such interrelations of the various vocal organs during speech is astonishing.