On Saturday, December 20, 2003, at 08:50 AM, Christopher BJ Smith wrote:
On Friday, December 19, 2003, at 12:28 PM, Weldon Whipple wrote:
The turning point for me was when I travelled from Minnesota (where
I lived at the time) to Toronto.
Trawna! But try Gander Newfoundland (and points north),
At 1:20 PM -0800 12/19/03, Philip Aker wrote:
On Friday, December 19, 2003, at 12:28 PM, Weldon Whipple wrote:
The turning point for me was when I travelled from Minnesota (where
I lived at the time) to Toronto.
Trawna! But try Gander Newfoundland (and points north), for an ear
opener on pronunc
On Friday, December 19, 2003, at 10:23 AM, Phil Daley wrote:
I am arriving late on this thread. So maybe this has been said 100
times already:
Dictionary hyphenation is for English students and writers.
Singers need to have the consonants put at the beginning of the
syllable they are singing.
On Friday, December 19, 2003, at 12:39 PM, Weldon Whipple wrote:
I disagree completely with Mark. If you compare the "wrong"
hyphenation of
older scores with dictionaries of the time, you will find that most of
the
hyphenation corresponds with the syllabification found in those
dictionaries.
I
On Friday, December 19, 2003, at 02:02 PM, Andrew Stiller wrote:
The turning point for me was when I travelled from Minnesota (where
I lived at the time) to Toronto.
Trawna! But try Gander Newfoundland (and points north), for an ear
opener on pronunciation of the English language in North Ameri
Phil Daley wrote:
I think the Fred Waring arrangements used to have some "symbolic"
pronunciation guide below the text. I believe it has a name, but I
don't remember it.
Tone Syllables. His goal was to have his singers pronounce every
phoneme exactly alike at the same nanosecond. He couldn't s
On Friday, December 19, 2003, at 12:28 PM, Weldon Whipple wrote:
The turning point for me was when I travelled from Minnesota (where
I lived at the time) to Toronto.
Trawna! But try Gander Newfoundland (and points north), for an ear
opener on pronunciation of the English language in North Americ
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003, Harold Owen wrote:
I know that "Glo-ster" ("Glouchestershire") is in a song. Anyone know
a song with "Bal-muh" ("Baltimore") in it? No need for apostrophes
there.
How about Worcester, Massachusetts. (Pronounced--as nearly as I can
tell--by natives as w[schwa]s-t[schwa] ...
On Friday, December 19, 2003, at 12:28 PM, Weldon Whipple wrote:
The turning point for me was when I travelled from Minnesota (where I
lived at the time) to Toronto.
Trawna! But try Gander Newfoundland (and points north), for an ear
opener on pronunciation of the English language in North Americ
In a message dated 19/12/2003 20:47:08 GMT Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
How about Worcester, Massachusetts. (Pronounced--as nearly as I can
tell--by natives as w[schwa]s-t[schwa] ... where the {schwa] sound is the
sound used when pronouncing various "short" vowels in unaccented (U.S.)
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003, Mark D Lew wrote:
>
> On Thursday, December 18, 2003, at 05:35 AM, Cecil Rigby wrote:
>
> > What else *would* we use if not use that? (Not a rhetorical
> > question... I'm
> > open to learning something.)
>
> The other option is to spell out the word properly and completely,
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003, Harold Owen wrote:
> I know that "Glo-ster" ("Glouchestershire") is in a song. Anyone know
> a song with "Bal-muh" ("Baltimore") in it? No need for apostrophes
> there.
How about Worcester, Massachusetts. (Pronounced--as nearly as I can
tell--by natives as w[schwa]s-t[schwa]
On Fri, 19 Dec 2003, Mark D Lew wrote:
> On Friday, December 19, 2003, at 05:36 AM, Christopher BJ Smith wrote:
>
> > Really?! This is quite a revelation to me (that's "rev-e-la-tion" not
> > "re-ve-la-tion") as I always thought hyphenation was fixed and not
> > dependent on pronounciation. Shows
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003, Christopher BJ Smith wrote:
> At 12:18 PM -0600 12/18/03, Noel Stoutenburg wrote:
> >
> >A review of my dictionary shows that all of the multi words which
> >begin with a long "O", including among others, obey, open, over,
> >onerous, and Otolaryngologyst, seem to have the lon
On Friday, December 19, 2003, at 05:36 AM, Christopher BJ Smith wrote:
> Really?! This is quite a revelation to me (that's "rev-e-la-tion" not
> "re-ve-la-tion") as I always thought hyphenation was fixed and not
> dependent on pronounciation. Shows what I know.
I am arriving late on this thread.
On Friday, December 19, 2003, at 05:36 AM, Christopher BJ Smith wrote:
Really?! This is quite a revelation to me (that's "rev-e-la-tion" not
"re-ve-la-tion") as I always thought hyphenation was fixed and not
dependent on pronounciation. Shows what I know.
And don't forget homographs: des-ert vs
On Friday, December 19, 2003, at 05:36 AM, Christopher BJ Smith wrote:
Really?! This is quite a revelation to me (that's "rev-e-la-tion" not
"re-ve-la-tion") as I always thought hyphenation was fixed and not
dependent on pronounciation. Shows what I know.
It also explains why you sometimes see
At 11:11 PM -0800 12/18/03, Mark D Lew wrote:
On Thursday, December 18, 2003, at 01:46 PM, Christopher BJ Smith wrote:
Hmm, I and my immediate family pronounce "obliterate" and
"oligarchy" with long o sounds, and "onerous" with a short o. So
much for generalisations with regional pronounciation
On Thursday, December 18, 2003, at 01:46 PM, Christopher BJ Smith
wrote:
Hmm, I and my immediate family pronounce "obliterate" and "oligarchy"
with long o sounds, and "onerous" with a short o. So much for
generalisations with regional pronounciations, as I would have
hyphenated those words in
On Thursday, December 18, 2003, at 01:41 AM, Darcy James Argue wrote:
Hmmm... I'm not sure what you mean by "an ordinary way" -- for me, at
least, the ordinary way of pronouncing "opening" *is* "ope-ning."
It's one of those two-syllable words that the dictionary insists on
rendering as three,
On Thursday, December 18, 2003, at 05:35 AM, Cecil Rigby wrote:
What else *would* we use if not use that? (Not a rhetorical
question... I'm
open to learning something.)
The other option is to spell out the word properly and completely,
allowing what looks like two syllables to appear under a si
IN response to my comment:
A review of my dictionary shows that all of the multi words which
begin with a long "O", including among others, obey, open, over,
onerous, and Otolaryngologyst, seem to have the long 'o' as a separate
syllable, and those where the o is short, (obliterate, ocular,
ol
Title: Re: [Finale] Merged syllable question and
Printer
At 1:58 PM -0500 12/18/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message
dated 18/12/2003 18:53:50 GMT Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
know that
"Glo-ster" ("Glouchestershire") is in a song.
Anyone know
a song with &
At 12:18 PM -0600 12/18/03, Noel Stoutenburg wrote:
A review of my dictionary shows that all of the multi words which
begin with a long "O", including among others, obey, open, over,
onerous, and Otolaryngologyst, seem to have the long 'o' as a
separate syllable, and those where the o is short,
I know that "Glo-ster" ("Glouchestershire") is in a song. Anyone know
a song with "Bal-muh" ("Baltimore") in it? No need for apostrophes
there.
Hal Owen
I think at some point we risk straying into regional dialect, don't we? I
can guarantee you that there are southerners who are world champions
I think at some point we risk straying into regional dialect, don't we? I
can guarantee you that there are southerners who are world champions at
reducing multi-syllabic words to just one or two!
--Richard
> From: "Crystal Premo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> A quick survey of the 14 people here in th
After quoting someone else, (Richard, I think, but if not, apologies in
advance):
For this example, I would choose "o-p'ning". I don't know that I'd
generalize that as a rule to always use apostrophe, though. In other
contexts it might be clearer to spell out what looks like two
syllables but
Hmmm... I'm not sure what you mean by "an ordinary way" -- for me, at
least, the ordinary way of pronouncing "opening" *is* "ope-ning." It's
one of those two-syllable words that the dictionary insists on rendering
as three, even though you hardly hear anyone say "o-pen-ing" anymore.<<
A quick s
Is it still customary when entering lyrics to use an apostrophe and
dropped vowel to indicate a "merged" syllable in English (i.e.,
where the word as sung has fewer syllables than the dictionary
hyphenation)? Or is that an archaic practice?
Except maybe for a few reified situations (e.g. "heav'
There are so many possible variants in English; that's why many editors
find it one of the most difficult languages to typeset properly-- so I
won't go into cases.
But using the apostrophe for these cases is still common-practice, not
archaic in the least. It's use is widely understood in what eve
I think it's still the current method -- at least I have seen it in
music that is currently available for sale.
David Bailey
Darcy James Argue wrote:
Is it still customary when entering lyrics to use an apostrophe and
dropped vowel to indicate a "merged" syllable in English (i.e., where
the w
For this example, I would choose "o-p'ning". I don't know that I'd
generalize that as a rule to always use apostrophe, though. In other
contexts it might be clearer to spell out what looks like two
syllables but is pronounced as one.
This is assuming that the melody is using the word in an ord
On Wednesday, December 17, 2003, at 07:34 PM, Darcy James Argue wrote:
Is it still customary when entering lyrics to use an apostrophe and
dropped vowel to indicate a "merged" syllable in English (i.e., where
the word as sung has fewer syllables than the dictionary hyphenation)?
Or is that an
In my book it's still customary and preferable. By the way, I'd write your
example as "op-'ning." A similar example, "ev-'ning."
While o-pen-ing would be correct if the e were used (three syllables), when
the e is not spoken, the word changes its complexion, so to speak. You treat
it as if it were
34 matches
Mail list logo
