Cato's Grammar Grumble

[Karl Henning]

So the question is, Is the articulation of a voiceless consonant a syllable? : )

[Ataraxia]

So the question is, Is the articulation of a voiceless consonant a syllable? : )

And I'd think the answer would be "no."

[Opus106]

Dumb question #48844224567432: Does "Coke" have one or two syllables?

I notice that if I say it casually, it sounds like a cockney saying "coat" (the second two letters are ignored), but if I try to compensate, I put enough emphasis on the k to make it sound two-part. I suppose technically it is one syllable but the way it's spoken feels awkwardly like one and a half. Maybe it's my brain subconsciously pushing me towards the two bits in "Coca".

Is it a pair of demi-syllables?

[Ataraxia]

We need an "-oke" link.

[Ataraxia]

And of course she's British so she's probably pronouncing it incorrectly. 

[Karl Henning]

Yowch!

[Karl Henning]

It's probably done on parallel reasons with the usual system for transliterating Hebrew:  K for Kaph, Kh for Kaph sofit, Q for Qof, and H with a dot under it for Chet, in which the instructions suggest taking Scot loch or German Ich/Ach as approximations.

Kaph is the letter used, eg in Cohen;  Qof is the letter used in Qabalah/Kabbalah; Chet is the letter which leads off Chai and Chanukah. However, to add to the confusion, Kaph is actually a "double letter"; when a dot, called a dagesh, is inserted into the letter, it's sounded like Chet. Kaph sofit is the form of Kaph used when it's the final letter of a word, and is almost always used with the dagesh in that position.

Functionally in modern speech Kaph without dagesh sounds just like Qof; Kaph with dagesh sounds just like Chet, but K is the transliteration for both versions.  There is a grammatical rule which allows you to tell when you're dealing with a dagesh-Kaph or not. and because of that rule, Karl's name would be transliterated into Hebrew with Qof, and therefore transliterated back into English letters as QaRL.  (Dagesh is used when the Kaph is the first letter of a word or syllable.)

Cato would probably be QaiTV--where the V is a V used as a vowel to represent long O or long U.

The catarrh on the cutter from Qatar . . . .

[Ataraxia]

Yowch!

She can take a joke. Can't she? 

[Lethevich]

I'm afraid not - we are now mortal enemies!

[Ataraxia]

I'm afraid not - we are now mortal enemies!

[Karl Henning]

She can take a joke. Can't she? 

I've always believed she can.

[Cato]

"Coke" - trust me on this - is one syllable.

I have heard people exaggerate their pronunciations, so that the silent "e" at the end of a word sounds closer to the pronounced final "e" in a German word. e.g. in their mouths "Name" = nay-muh.

A local priest, who according to legend had a childhood speech impediment, is infamous for over-pronouncing everything, which leads to ludicrous sounding sermons, of course, because one becomes distracted by the odd precision of everything.

"So precise it is wrong,"  e.g. he pronounces "God" so precisely that the final "d" comes out almost like a "t."  Or he will say "Godduh."

He also has a bizarre rhythm, where - for no obvious reason - he will speak rapidly, and then suddenly  h   e     w    i     l     l        taaaaallllllkkkk     sssssllloooowwwwlllllyyyyy.

[Lethevich]

(As this is the general language complaints thread, here we go... )

I've noticed a technique that thriller type films use to make "it's a fake ID" sound much more impressive and potentially 'impossible':

"Either this guy doesn't exist or he's been wiped off the record."

His assumed identity may not be genuine, but it certainly exists, and I am fairly sure that the guy does too.

[Karl Henning]

After finishing third in Iowa and second in New Hampshire, that was his worse showing yet.

One forgives the odd typo/error in on-line MSM.  But one cringes, even in the forgiving.

[Karl Henning]

Ouch!

Can Romney find a way to diffuse Newt's debate tactics?

I don't think of diffuse / defuse as a 'traditional' confusion.

[petrarch]

Ouch!

I don't think of diffuse / defuse as a 'traditional' confusion.

But it is very bazaar, anyway (saw this one not long ago).

[Karl Henning]

Tee-hee!

[Karl Henning]

Separately . . . I know, just a typo . . . but rather a funny one in the initial line of an extended review:

In the pantheon of fantasy writers, no diety is treated with greater reverence than J.R.R. Tolkien . . . .

[Cato]

Separately . . . I know, just a typo . . . but rather a funny one in the initial line of an extended review:

"No diety" - maybe the writer is an Austrylian!   

[Cato]

So my wife was watching a show about Lawn Guyland (i.e. Long Island  0:)  )  doctors and the plot necessitated a woman trying to translate a German phrase into English.

So she goes to the Internet and types in "Es ist nicht ihr."     The Internet brings: "It is not her."

"Ihr" can mean "her" in German, both as a possessive adjective (ihr Buch = her book) and a dative (ich gebe ihr ein Buch = I am giving her a book).

Okay, so very few Americans will not know that she should have typed in: "Es ist nicht sie" or "Sie ist es nicht."

This problem goes back to the use of the accusative in English after the intransitive verb to be:

"Who's there?"  "It's me!"  (Technically, one should say: "It is I."  But few people would, since it sounds (to American ears at least, odd and even arrogant).

The children's show of the good ol' days, MisterRogers, attempted to counteract this, as Mr. Rogers would say things e.g. (after a knock on the door): "Oh!  That must be he now!"   

In German "It's me" would be translated into normal German as "Ich bin es."  (Word for word: "I am it.")