On Monday, Oct 20, 2003, at 16:57 US/Pacific, Mark D. Lew wrote:
I think the separate syllable could be trac·ed back even further.
English scholars, what say ye?
Certainly. I thought the question was how *late* it persisted, not
how early...
There was a two part question from Dennis:
Which
Which reminds me of a question I've always wanted to ask about: in
a Purcell piece (as published by Carus Verlag), the -ed of
displeased has its own note. Does this mean it was actually
pronounced at the time? When did the vocalic sound disappear?
This thread started on the Orchestralist, and
At 8:50 PM 10/19/03, Philip Aker wrote:
I think the separate syllable could be trac·ed back even further.
English scholars, what say ye?
Certainly. I thought the question was how *late* it persisted, not how
early. Pronouncing the -ed as a separate syllable is the earlier practice,
and is pretty
Mark D. Lew wrote:
Certainly. I thought the question was how *late* it persisted, not how
early. Pronouncing the -ed as a separate syllable is the earlier
practice, and is pretty much universal for anything before Shakespeare.
In mid-seventeenth-century English song manuscripts (beginning a
Shakespeare used either the -ed or the -'d form as required by the
meter.
Horace Brock
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 13:16:41 -0400, you wrote:
Which reminds me of a question I've always wanted to ask about: in
a Purcell piece (as published by Carus Verlag), the -ed of
displeased has its own note.
At 11:32 AM 10/17/03, John.Howell wrote:
The whole point--which nobody has actually stated, I think--is that
every language has its own rules for hyphenation, and applying rules
from English, or Latin, or any other language simply isn't valid.
And of course all rules have exceptions. Do not
At 11:49 AM +0200 10/19/03, d. collins wrote:
Which reminds me of a question I've always wanted to ask about: in a
Purcell piece (as published by Carus Verlag), the -ed of displeased
has its own note. Does this mean it was actually pronounced at the
time?
Yes, it is archaic in most cases, but
But Naked isn't a past-participle the way displeased is.
Naked isn't a verb at all.
Christopher BJ Smith wrote:
At 11:49 AM +0200 10/19/03, d. collins wrote:
Which reminds me of a question I've always wanted to ask about: in a
Purcell piece (as published by Carus Verlag), the -ed of
At 11:49 AM 10/19/03, d. collins wrote:
Which reminds me of a question I've always wanted to ask about: in a
Purcell piece (as published by Carus Verlag), the -ed of displeased has its
own note. Does this mean it was actually pronounced at the time? When did
the vocalic sound disappear?
I think
At 2:54 PM -0400 10/19/03, David H. Bailey wrote:
But Naked isn't a past-participle the way displeased is.
Naked isn't a verb at all.
Sure it is. I nake, you nake, he nakes, they nake, we nake, I have
naked, she will nake, I might have naked if everyone else hadn't
flaked. (big grin)
Sorry
On Sunday, Oct 19, 2003, at 16:21 US/Pacific, Mark D. Lew wrote:
At 11:49 AM 10/19/03, d. collins wrote:
Which reminds me of a question I've always wanted to ask about: in a
Purcell piece (as published by Carus Verlag), the -ed of displeased
has its own note. Does this mean it was actually
At 1:08 PM 10/16/03, d. collins wrote:
I'm also wondering if the rules are the same for a regular printed text and
for vocal music. In Latin, for instance, one sees in sacred music divisions
that don't correspond to normal syllables. (e.g. no-stra rather than
nos-tra).
In Italian there's no need
At 1:08 PM 10/16/03, d. collins wrote:
I'm also wondering if the rules are the same for a regular printed text and
for vocal music. In Latin, for instance, one sees in sacred music divisions
that don't correspond to normal syllables. (e.g. no-stra rather than
nos-tra).
In Italian there's no need
Dennis wrote, asking about the syllabificaton of the Latin word nostra
as no-stra rather than nos-tra, wrote, in part:.
In Latin, for instance, one sees in sacred music divisions
that don't correspond to normal syllables. (e.g. no-stra rather than
nos-tra).
Well, there is Ecclesiastical
At 12.33 16/10/2003 +0200, d. collins wrote:
Does anyone have the rules, or know where I could find them, for cutting
words into syllables in Italian?
Take a look here:
http://www.xs4all.nl/~talo/talo/i_rules.html
I'm going to check if the rules are correct (it's a Dutch site after all).
I'll
At 12.33 16/10/2003 +0200, d. collins wrote:
Does anyone have the rules, or know where I could find them, for cutting
words into syllables in Italian?
Just checked, the rules are okay.
There is only one thing that sounds strange (I mean nor true) to me, it's
the Note at point 1) that says: When
At 13.08 16/10/2003 +0200, d. collins wrote:
Giuliano Forghieri écrit:
I'm going to check if the rules are correct (it's a Dutch site after
all). I'll post again if I find errors.
Thanks, Giuliano! Exactly what I need. I look forward to reading your
opinion on this site.
I'm also wondering if
17 matches
Mail list logo
