| View previous topic :: View next topic |
|
|
|
 |
|
Now we all agreed, didn't we, that English is English in whatever form. Okay, Spanish is Spanish is Spanish in just the same way. So-called "pure Castilian" is spoken by, maybe, only 15% of the total population of hispanohablantes.
Let Nick adjudicate. He is fluent. I am only semi-fluent.
Will reply to Dan later. No time now.
|
|
  |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Chad wrote: | | Are you telling us that in standardised Spanish (which you agree is pretty phonetic) you can't deduce pronunciation from the written word |
No. I am saying it the other way around. You cannot in all cases deduce with one hundred per cent correctness the spelling from the pronunciation. And also that with some spellings you have a variation of pronunciations according to geography, class and so on, just like English.
| ... but in un-standardised 'Middle' English (when even standardised Modern English is pretty un-phonetic) you can? |
No, I am just saying that we can make a reasonably good guess.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In Reply to Dan - at least two of his points:
OK. OK. Sure, sure. Of course it is "showers suit" or even perhaps "showers soot" BTW what does it mean, do you think?
And soote can not mean "sweet" because we have sweete only four lines later. Right.!!
But didn't you just point out to me that the spelling was a bit experimental, as one might say? But now you expect it to be standardised. Yeah ! Good !
You might find this a little strange and difficult to follow but textbooks on Historical Linguistics are mainly about the techniques for studying languages in a historical context - why they stay unchanged - why they change: what types of change occur and so on. In the context of Oceanian languages there are no historical documents to confuse the issue and we can ignore any possible distortions that might be caused by current orthographies by using the IPA. And so they in fact offer excellent data for study, especially as the study is of the spoken language.
So I might in turn say, Never mind all that, Dan. Think!!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DPCrisp
In: Bedfordshire
|
|
|
|
| OK. OK. Sure, sure. Of course it is "showers suit" or even perhaps "showers soot" BTW what does it mean, do you think? |
A-fucking-tendant! April and the showers that go along with him: April showers.
Why do I have to keep repeating myself?
| But didn't you just point out to me that the spelling was a bit experimental, as one might say? But now you expect it to be standardised. |
Er... no. We can only read unstandardised spellings because we can recognise the words. {Don't forget, standardising just means choosing from among the options tried: they all made sense, they're all readable. The problem is with how much they read into the old spellings.} We can't read off the pronunciations with the fidelity they say we can. If spellings are variable and compatible with multiple pronunciations, sweete and soote might, logically, represent the same word, but we can't deduce with any certainty that they do. Statistically, it's unlikely. {And in English it's hardly convincing. And yes, soote or sote does occur in both positions in some versions, but in that case, the context allows both of them to be suit. "Shoures sweete" does not occur. It wouldn't rhyme with roote/rote if it did: which I take to be root because it looks, in context, to be root; and while the spellings roote/rote could differ from "root", they can also be exactly the same [cf. O_E in Domesday], so I won't bother exploring the alternatives.}
Why do I have to keep repeating myself?
| ...the techniques for studying languages in a historical context... Oceanian languages... the study is of the spoken language. |
So the history of Oceanian languages can not be studied: it is simply expounded on the basis of principles developed elsewhere. (The success of historical linguistic principles is judged by the success with which they apply them.)
Why do I have to keep repeating myself?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Since when does fucking suit mean fucking attendant. ?
The reason why you keep having to repeat yourself is because you are not making sense in the first fucking place.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Hatty
Site Admin
In: Berkshire
|
|
|
|
|
Dan's analysis makes total sense to me. Once I was a sweet person. Back on page 23 (Flying Chaucers)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DPCrisp
In: Bedfordshire
|
|
|
|
Thank you, Hatty.
| Since when does fucking suit mean fucking attendant. ? |
Since antiquity, apparently. In some of the words of the New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary:
suit: Attendance by a tenant at the court of his lord... Attendance of a person at the sheriff's court... A livery, a uniform... A pattern, a style of workmanship or design, esp. a matching one... A group of followers... A number of things of the same kind intended to be used together or forming a definite set... A succession, a sequence... Arrange in a set or series, sort out... Match... Be suitable, fitting, or convenient, go well... suitable: matching... corresponding... appropriate to a person's character... suite: A set of people in attendance... A succession, a series, a set of things belonging together... suitor: an adherent, a follower...
| I wrote: | | A[t]tendant! April and the showers that go along with [or follow (from)] him: April showers. |
Why do I have to keep repeating myself?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Chad
In: Ramsbottom
|
|
|
|
| berniegreen wrote: | | No, I am just saying that we can make a reasonably good guess. |
If one accepts Dan's logical and well reasoned argument (and I'm with Hatty on this one) then your guesses (good or otherwise) are anything but reasonably arrived at.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Hatty wrote: | | Dan's analysis makes total sense to me. Once I was a sweet person. Back on page 23 (Flying Chaucers) |
But I really don't see "Hatty with her suit family walked into Tesco's." (or should it be - "Hatty with her family suit walked into Tesco's") flying somehow in 2010, do you?
Dan's problem is that he keeps shifting the goalposts but he doesn't seem to realise it. You just can't claim in one breath that a particular word is ordinary plain old English just lying around waiting to be understood with meaning X and then reveal in the next breath that meaning X is in fact an archaic meaning no longer in current use and still retain your credibility.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Chad wrote: | | If one accepts Dan's logical and well reasoned argument |
I will now readily concede that he makes a good case for "attendant showers". But I still maintain that his claims that it would be obvious to all if it weren't for the machinations of the "Middle English Mafia" and that the typical 21st century citizen can read Chaucer without some sort of gloss are just transparent tosh.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DPCrisp
In: Bedfordshire
|
|
|
|
Bernie, are you saying that it has escaped your notice that suit/suite/suitor/pursuit/sue... is all about what goes together, attends, follows, follows from...?
I didn't dig up some archaic meaning: I looked, saw soote, thought of suit and saw how it fitted perfectly -- without concocting an otherwise unknown word meaning sweet and without contradicting the sweete that does occur after it
I can hardly believe no one else saw it. But then, the whole industry is dedicated to how different Middle English is, how it has to be translated or glossed to be understood. People have learned -- and see -- what they've been taught.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Hatty
Site Admin
In: Berkshire
|
|
|
|
|
Waitrose is a Temple for local celeb-spotting. Meeting suitors at the coffee shop is still going strong in the 21st century.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Chad
In: Ramsbottom
|
|
|
|
| berniegreen wrote: | | that the typical 21st century citizen can read Chaucer without some sort of gloss are just transparent tosh. |
But this is exactly the proof in Dan's pudding.
After reading Dan's analysis (and without any previous training) once the penny drops, any one of us can go on and read a piece of Middle English text without the need for translation.
It may take a little practice to become fluent (due to the unfamiliar spellings) but the fact that it can be done is proof in itself.
{Bernie will now proceed to post various texts in Middle English on which to test us.}
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Chad
In: Ramsbottom
|
|
|
|
| Hatty wrote: | | Waitrose is a Temple for local celeb-spotting. |
I once spotted Phil Neville in our local Co-op.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DPCrisp
In: Bedfordshire
|
|
|
|
People have learned -- and see -- what they've been taught.
|
It follows, of course, that arguments of the form "I didn't spot it" have no force.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
The Library Index 
FAQ 
Search
Register
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
