 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le_Forgeron <jgr### [at] free fr> writes:
> the case of the sea water (rather 3 to 4%)), but 2 seems bogus: when
> pression increases, the states move from gas to liquid to solid (unless
> you are on the diagram part where liquid is gone away... well there is
> also a part of high pressure where liquid and gas are not separate...
> for high temperatures).
Actually, when external pressure increases, the melting point of water
goes down:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Melting_curve_of_water.jpg
Here's one explanation. Not 100% sure it's correct:
http://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae132.cfm
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> If I take 3L of water at 30°C and cool it to 4°C, what would its new
>> volume be?
>
> dunno. Ask Wolfram.
Duh. Like I didn't already try that. ;-)
WA is great, but it doesn't understand modestly complex queries.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> Since it _is_ Friday and all...
>
>
>
> If I take 3L of water at 30°C and cool it to 4°C, what would its new
> volume be?
Slightly smaller.
> Where the heck do silent letters come from?
They represent sounds that existed in the spoken language at some point
in the past, but which have since been lost. I blame the French.
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
John VanSickle wrote:
> I blame the French.
Sure. Everybody does.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Orchid XP v8" <voi### [at] devnull> a écrit dans le message de news:
4c3a2cc1$1@news.povray.org...
> John VanSickle wrote:
>
>> I blame the French.
>
> Sure. Everybody does.
>
I don't ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 11/07/2010 11:03 PM, M_a_r_c wrote:
> "Orchid XP v8"<voi### [at] devnull> a écrit dans le message de news:
> 4c3a2cc1$1@news.povray.org...
>> John VanSickle wrote:
>>
>>> I blame the French.
>>
>> Sure. Everybody does.
>>
> I don't ;-)
>
>
We Scots don't.
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 17:27:07 +0100, John VanSickle
<evi### [at] hotmailcom> did spake thusly:
> Invisible wrote:
>> Since it _is_ Friday and all...
>> If I take 3L of water at 30°C and cool it to 4°C, what would its new
>> volume be?
>
> Slightly smaller.
>
>> Where the heck do silent letters come from?
>
> They represent sounds that existed in the spoken language at some point
> in the past, but which have since been lost. I blame the French.
or the Germans, or the Romans, or the... anybody else who's had an
influence on the current version of English. For example "ghost" was
originally spelt as "gost" but possinly under the influence of the Dutch
their version "gheest" was used in a printing and it stuck.
>> As I understand it, before the invention of the printing press, words
>> didn't have standard spellings. You just spell the word approximately
>> how it sounds. The first printers fixed the spelling of several words.
>> (E.g., "put" is spelt with a "U" because that's the letter that could
>> be printed most clearly. Nothing to do with phonetics.) This utterly
>> fails to explain why words like "knife" have a "K" in them. (
As an aside this has helped to show regional pronunciations and shifts.
Take the simple word "Blessed" and it can be seen written as "Blessid" or
"Blessud" and note we even have the current variant "Blest" thanks to the
-ed/-t sound similarity.
All good fun.
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> Where the heck do silent letters come from?
>>
>> They represent sounds that existed in the spoken language at some
>> point in the past, but which have since been lost. I blame the French.
>
> or the Germans, or the Romans, or the... anybody else who's had an
> influence on the current version of English. For example "ghost" was
> originally spelt as "gost" but possinly under the influence of the Dutch
> their version "gheest" was used in a printing and it stuck.
Sure. But the Romans didn't have printing presses. And, as I say, back
then words didn't have a set spelling; that only came in after printing.
So that doesn't explain how a long-dead language can influence the
spelling of a modern one.
> All good fun.
I wonder how long it will be before the OED starts listing words like
"pr0n" as actual spellings.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Sure. But the Romans didn't have printing presses. And, as I say, back
> then words didn't have a set spelling; that only came in after printing.
> So that doesn't explain how a long-dead language can influence the
> spelling of a modern one.
Of course it does! When you invade a country you pick up some of the local
lingo too (and maybe pronounce it slightly differently), which leads to
English being a mix of various languages. I don't see what the printing
press has to do with anything, people still spoke and wrote before that!
I'm sure you can research where various words came from, but I suspect "kn-"
type words (eg knot) came from the Saxons as there are similar words in
German where the "k" is voiced. "Psy-" type words are Greek, if you
investigated the Greek language you'd probably find out why they are
spelt/pronounced like that.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
> I don't see what the
> printing press has to do with anything, people still spoke and wrote
> before that!
To reiterate: Apparently before the invention of the printing press,
words didn't have standard spellings. People just wrote them down
however seemed right at the time, making up the spellings as they went
along. It's only when printing started the mass dissemination of written
material that words acquired fixed spellings. So it's only after this
point in time that silent letters could have survived.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> To reiterate: Apparently before the invention of the printing press, words
> didn't have standard spellings. People just wrote them down however seemed
> right at the time, making up the spellings as they went along. It's only
> when printing started the mass dissemination of written material that
> words acquired fixed spellings. So it's only after this point in time that
> silent letters could have survived.
Why couldn't words have been spelt before printing presses with silent
letters? It's probably precisely the fact that words were spelt in many
ways that led to some unusual spellings becoming "standard".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 14:32:25 +0100, scott <sco### [at] scottcom> did
spake thusly:
>> To reiterate: Apparently before the invention of the printing press,
>> words didn't have standard spellings. People just wrote them down
>> however seemed right at the time, making up the spellings as they went
>> along. It's only when printing started the mass dissemination of
>> written material that words acquired fixed spellings. So it's only
>> after this point in time that silent letters could have survived.
>
> Why couldn't words have been spelt before printing presses with silent
> letters? It's probably precisely the fact that words were spelt in many
> ways that led to some unusual spellings becoming "standard".
To put it another way how do you know they were silent letters, how many
voice recordings were there in the 17th century? Words such as knife might
have entered as the standard spelling because the k was still pronounced
at the time. Or it may well have been that 'everyone knows knife is spelt
with a k' even if it wasn't voiced.
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Phil Cook v2 wrote:
> To put it another way how do you know they were silent letters, how many
> voice recordings were there in the 17th century? Words such as knife
> might have entered as the standard spelling because the k was still
> pronounced at the time.
Except that it's impossible to pronounce that.
The only thing I can think of is if there used to be another vowel in
there which has slowly vanished or something.
> Or it may well have been that 'everyone knows
> knife is spelt with a k' even if it wasn't voiced.
As I say, I got the impression that this whole idea of words having a
fixed spelling didn't exist until printing came along. Like, ask five
different people and they'd spell the word five different ways. (And
probably pronounce it differently too, come to think of it.)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> As I say, I got the impression that this whole idea of words having a
> fixed spelling didn't exist until printing came along.
Benjamin Franklin (late 1700s) was big on making things spelled
consistently. We were taught in grade school that "Benjamin Franklin
invented spelling", but I'm not finding support for that online.
> Like, ask five
> different people and they'd spell the word five different ways. (And
> probably pronounce it differently too, come to think of it.)
And spell it several different ways in the same paragraph, for that matter.
I think Shakespeare tended to spell things pretty randomly, for example.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
C# - a language whose greatest drawback
is that its best implementation comes
from a company that doesn't hate Microsoft.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12/07/2010 5:13 PM, Darren New wrote:
> And spell it several different ways in the same paragraph, for that
> matter. I think Shakespeare tended to spell things pretty randomly, for
> example.
Including his own name.
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> a écrit dans le message de news:
4c3b387e$1@news.povray.org...
> Phil Cook v2 wrote:
>
>> To put it another way how do you know they were silent letters, how many
>> voice recordings were there in the 17th century? Words such as knife
>> might have entered as the standard spelling because the k was still
>> pronounced at the time.
>
> Except that it's impossible to pronounce that.
>
It is not because your tongue is not trained at doing a sound that it is
impossible
listen at Xhosa click language :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_l7ty_MH_Y
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZlp-croVYw
Marc
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am Mon, 12 Jul 2010 16:45:02 +0100 schrieb Invisible:
> Phil Cook v2 wrote:
>
>> To put it another way how do you know they were silent letters, how
>> many voice recordings were there in the 17th century? Words such as
>> knife might have entered as the standard spelling because the k was
>> still pronounced at the time.
>
> Except that it's impossible to pronounce that.
It is possible! In german we have words such as
Knopf, Knall, knistern, Knüller
If you want, I could provide audio samples to prove that both k and n are
pronounced without vowel between them in this cases (although I guess you
could argue, that it froms a new consonant although I would disagree)
>
> The only thing I can think of is if there used to be another vowel in
> there which has slowly vanished or something.
>
>> Or it may well have been that 'everyone knows knife is spelt with a k'
>> even if it wasn't voiced.
>
> As I say, I got the impression that this whole idea of words having a
> fixed spelling didn't exist until printing came along. Like, ask five
> different people and they'd spell the word five different ways. (And
> probably pronounce it differently too, come to think of it.)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Except that it's impossible to pronounce that.
>
> It is possible! In german we have words such as
>
> Knopf, Knall, knistern, Knüller
Yeah, but I would imagine that the pronounciation rules for German are
radically different to English anyway.
In Welsh there are words that contain no vowels at all. (Then again,
have you ever heard those people "speak"?)
> If you want, I could provide audio samples to prove that both k and n are
> pronounced without vowel between them in this cases (although I guess you
> could argue, that it froms a new consonant although I would disagree)
I believe I still have an MP3 file on my PC featuring your voice gently
utterly "Lieblich Gedackt"...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12/07/2010 6:26 PM, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>
> Yeah, but I would imagine that the pronounciation rules for German are
> radically different to English anyway.
>
Why?
> In Welsh there are words that contain no vowels at all. (Then again,
> have you ever heard those people "speak"?)
Yes.
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Yeah, but I would imagine that the pronounciation rules for German are
>> radically different to English anyway.
>>
>
> Why?
Because it's an entirely different language?
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 16:45:02 +0100, Invisible wrote:
> Except that it's impossible to pronounce that.
Knife? Sure:
k'neyefeh
(that also covers the trailing silent 'e').
Sounds a little like Klingon, granted, but it is certainly pronounceable.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 18:44:41 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> Yeah, but I would imagine that the pronounciation rules for German are
>>> radically different to English anyway.
>>>
>>>
>> Why?
>
> Because it's an entirely different language?
That doesn't make the word unpronounceable.
Go watch Monty Python's Quest for the Holy Grail and listen to the faux
"French" where they talk about the "daffy English k'niggts" for another
example.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 16:45:02 +0100, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> did
spake thusly:
> Phil Cook v2 wrote:
>
>> To put it another way how do you know they were silent letters, how
>> many voice recordings were there in the 17th century? Words such as
>> knife might have entered as the standard spelling because the k was
>> still pronounced at the time.
>
> Except that it's impossible to pronounce that.
>
> The only thing I can think of is if there used to be another vowel in
> there which has slowly vanished or something.
As discussed such sounds are voiced in other languages we just 'lost' the
ability while retaining the spelling.
>> Or it may well have been that 'everyone knows knife is spelt with a k'
>> even if it wasn't voiced.
>
> As I say, I got the impression that this whole idea of words having a
> fixed spelling didn't exist until printing came along. Like, ask five
> different people and they'd spell the word five different ways. (And
> probably pronounce it differently too, come to think of it.)
Printing just allowed mass distribution and set a standardised spelling
system that way. It was copied from the hand-written/carved examples that
already existed. Tradition is a powerful force - if the German texts wrote
knife and the English texts copied that, then the print texts used that as
their cue; that becomes the way it is spelt regardless of how it is now
voiced.
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Phil Cook v2" <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote in message
news:op.vfqbd2vrmn4jds@phils...
> And lo On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 17:27:07 +0100, John VanSickle
> <evi### [at] hotmailcom> did spake thusly:
> >> Where the heck do silent letters come from?
> >
> > They represent sounds that existed in the spoken language at some point
> > in the past, but which have since been lost. I blame the French.
>
> or the Germans, or the Romans, or the... anybody else who's had an
> influence on the current version of English. For example "ghost" was
> originally spelt as "gost" but possinly under the influence of the Dutch
> their version "gheest" was used in a printing and it stuck.
And then there's "ghoti"...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Why?
>
> Because it's an entirely different language?
If it's an entirely different language then why are half of English words
almost the same as German?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> To put it another way how do you know they were silent letters,
Because the same person often wrote down the same word using different
spellings, and if you assume he pronounced them the same way, that seems to
indicate there could have been silent letters in use long before the
printing press. How do you know there weren't any silent letters? :-)
> Words such as knife might have entered as the standard spelling because
> the k was still pronounced at the time.
Or probably in one region it was spoken "nife" and in another "k-nife". If
the printer was from the "k-nife" region he would choose to write it
"knife", but then the "nife" pronunciation spread and we have the situation
today.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>>> Why?
>>
>> Because it's an entirely different language?
>
> If it's an entirely different language then why are half of English
> words almost the same as German?
Well, for example, according to my school French teacher, the French
word for "general" is... "general".
The thing is, the English pronounce it as /gɛnrəl/, but the French
pronounce it as /Ê’É›nÉ›rÉ‘Ël/. Which is quite different, in spite of the
identical spelling.
I say again: the pronounciation rules are entirely different. (For
French, it seems that the rule is, approximately, "ignore all consonants
and just emit a series of slightly varying vowels".)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 13/07/2010 10:06 AM, scott wrote:
>>> Why?
>>
>> Because it's an entirely different language?
>
> If it's an entirely different language then why are half of English
> words almost the same as German?
>
>
Because the English language has West German roots.
(I know, you know) :-)
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> If it's an entirely different language then why are half of English
>> words almost the same as German?
>
> Because the English language has West German roots.
> (I know, you know) :-)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_language
"English is a West Germanic language that arose in the Anglo-Saxon
kingdoms of England and ..."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> Because it's an entirely different language?
>>
>> If it's an entirely different language then why are half of English
>> words almost the same as German?
>
> Well, for example, according to my school French teacher, the French
> word for "general" is... "general".
...and the other half are French :-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>>> If it's an entirely different language then why are half of English
>>> words almost the same as German?
>
> ...and the other half are French :-)
I'm sure at least three quarters are Latin. :-P
I wonder which was bigger - the Roman empire or the British empire?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>>> If it's an entirely different language then why are half of English
>>>> words almost the same as German?
>>
>> ...and the other half are French :-)
>
> I'm sure at least three quarters are Latin. :-P
That's because three quarters of French is Latin!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>>>>> If it's an entirely different language then why are half of English
>>>>> words almost the same as German?
>>>
>>> ...and the other half are French :-)
>>
>> I'm sure at least three quarters are Latin. :-P
>
> That's because three quarters of French is Latin!
Or, more exactly, three quarters of all European languages are Latin. ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 13/07/2010 10:36 AM, Invisible wrote:
>
> I wonder which was bigger - the Roman empire or the British empire?
What were you taught in school?
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> I wonder which was bigger - the Roman empire or the British empire?
>
> What were you taught in school?
Long division, mainly.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 13/07/2010 11:14 AM, Invisible wrote:
>>> I wonder which was bigger - the Roman empire or the British empire?
>>
>> What were you taught in school?
>
> Long division, mainly.
What about, reading, writing, history and geography?
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> (For
> French, it seems that the rule is, approximately, "ignore all consonants
> and just emit a series of slightly varying vowels".)
Gosh.
You really need listen more French...
--
Vincent
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> (For French, it seems that the rule is, approximately, "ignore all
>> consonants and just emit a series of slightly varying vowels".)
>
> Gosh.
>
> You really need listen more French...
Only if you assert that being able to speak French is important. ;-)
(For example, "le roi est mort, vive le roi" appears to be rendered
approximately as "le wu e mo veev le wu". In other words, almost all the
consonants removed. Kind of like anti-unix or something...)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> I say again: the pronounciation rules are entirely different. (For
> French, it seems that the rule is, approximately, "ignore all consonants
> and just emit a series of slightly varying vowels".)
In fact, most european languages have very well-defined and predictable
pronounciation rules. If you see an unfamiliar word, you might not know what it
means but you can always pronounce it correctly. The big exception? English.
Unless you know how a particular word is pronounced, it's often a toss-up.
(and he's right, you obviously haven't heard much spoken french if you're in any
way serious in your comment :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Bill Pragnell wrote:
> In fact, most european languages have very well-defined and predictable
> pronounciation rules. If you see an unfamiliar word, you might not know what it
> means but you can always pronounce it correctly.
So I hear. (Obviously I can't actually verify this.)
> The big exception? English.
> Unless you know how a particular word is pronounced, it's often a toss-up.
Yeah, that's because English is a random mixture of a dozen different
languages. ;-)
Incidentally, this is probably why I had so much trouble learning to
read and write. I kept expecting it to be logical, and it isn't. That
really upset me.
> (and he's right, you obviously haven't heard much spoken french if you're in any
> way serious in your comment :)
Oh, I'm not seriously suggesting that that's all you need to know to
speak French. ;-) It just seems that the French use a lot of consonants
that don't appear to do anything.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Incidentally, this is probably why I had so much trouble learning to
> read and write. I kept expecting it to be logical, and it isn't. That
> really upset me.
I don't know if you've ever tried, but it sounds like you might find learning
another language easier than you think. Easier than english, perhaps!
> Oh, I'm not seriously suggesting that that's all you need to know to
> speak French. ;-) It just seems that the French use a lot of consonants
> that don't appear to do anything.
There are more silent consonants than in English. But the rules are simpler :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> In fact, most european languages have very well-defined and predictable
> pronounciation rules. If you see an unfamiliar word, you might not know
> what it
> means but you can always pronounce it correctly.
Also it works the other way too, if you hear a word you don't know, you can
usually spell it correctly.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"scott" <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> > In fact, most european languages have very well-defined and predictable
> > pronounciation rules. If you see an unfamiliar word, you might not know
> > what it
> > means but you can always pronounce it correctly.
>
> Also it works the other way too, if you hear a word you don't know, you can
> usually spell it correctly.
Indeed. I'm not great at french, but I'm just good enough to separate and
visualise (and therefore spell) unfamiliar words some of the time. Should really
try to practice it more... :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> Or, more exactly, three quarters of all European languages are Latin. ;-)
I don't think German is, tho. German isn't a romance language.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
C# - a language whose greatest drawback
is that its best implementation comes
from a company that doesn't hate Microsoft.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> a écrit dans le message de news:
4c3c51e4$1@news.povray.org...
>>> (For French, it seems that the rule is, approximately, "ignore all
>>> consonants and just emit a series of slightly varying vowels".)
>>
>> Gosh.
>>
>> You really need listen more French...
>
> Only if you assert that being able to speak French is important. ;-)
>
> (For example, "le roi est mort, vive le roi" appears to be rendered
> approximately as "le wu e mo veev le wu". In other words, almost all the
> consonants removed. Kind of like anti-unix or something...)
Just because you can't pronounce a french "r" does not mean that it is
removed :)
How do you pronounce "la Roja" in spanish (you must have heard it on media
last days)
Marc (with a R)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Or, more exactly, three quarters of all European languages are Latin. ;-)
>
> I don't think German is, tho. German isn't a romance language.
No, it's more of an engineering language. Italian, apparently, is the
language of love. ;-)
(Yes, I know, I know!)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
M_a_r_c wrote:
>> (For example, "le roi est mort, vive le roi" appears to be rendered
>> approximately as "le wu e mo veev le wu". In other words, almost all the
>> consonants removed. Kind of like anti-unix or something...)
> Just because you can't pronounce a french "r" does not mean that it is
> removed :)
Oh, *I* can't pronounce French at all! ;-)
I'm going by the pronounciation of Sandra Cretu.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am Mon, 12 Jul 2010 18:26:55 +0100 schrieb Orchid XP v8:
>>> Except that it's impossible to pronounce that.
>>
>> It is possible! In german we have words such as
>>
>> Knopf, Knall, knistern, Knüller
>
> Yeah, but I would imagine that the pronounciation rules for German are
> radically different to English anyway.
Well yes and no... the language borders are not so sharp as one might
think. Andrel might disagree on this, but I find the northern german
dialects closer to dutch than to the bavarian dialects of german for
example. And I found the "scottish english" closer to how a german would
pronounce english than the "english english" or whatever you call it ;).
>
> In Welsh there are words that contain no vowels at all. (Then again,
> have you ever heard those people "speak"?)
Unfortunately not that I remember... I'm trying to learn polish, which is
sometimes already a challenge for a german tongue :).
>
>> If you want, I could provide audio samples to prove that both k and n
>> are pronounced without vowel between them in this cases (although I
>> guess you could argue, that it froms a new consonant although I would
>> disagree)
>
> I believe I still have an MP3 file on my PC featuring your voice gently
> utterly "Lieblich Gedackt"...
Oh hey you remember :). I'm mostly lurking around here, so I'm slightly
surprised :).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> I believe I still have an MP3 file on my PC featuring your voice gently
>> utterly "Lieblich Gedackt"...
>
> Oh hey you remember :). I'm mostly lurking around here, so I'm slightly
> surprised :).
Everywhere I go, it seems that *everybody* knows me (even if I don't
know anybody else)...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 7/14/2010 3:10 AM, Invisible wrote:
> Everywhere I go, it seems that *everybody* knows me (even if I don't
> know anybody else)...
Fame is a cruel mistress.... :)
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
