What is the mainstream opinion regarding the framework laid out by Samuel Robert Ramsey in The Old Kyoto Dialect and The Historical Development of Japanese Accent for Old Kyoto accent? In short, he believes that the Old Kyoto even pitch was a rising pitch, and the rising pitch was a falling one, so that kátàchì is kàtà-tì (RRR), and ínù-gà is ínú-gà (EER). déhanchements (talk) 20:10, 17 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

In the 1860 song sheet Hicks the Pirate it says:

Air: "The Rose Tree"

Should the caption read "sung to The Rose Tree" or "played to The Rose Tree" or ..? -- GreenC 21:31, 18 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Looking at Air (music), I think the use of "air" is equivalent to "sung to the tune of". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:19, 19 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Baseball Bugs:, thanks! -- GreenC 02:18, 19 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

GreenC -- there are somewhat similar notes at the beginning of some of the psalms in the Biblical Book of Psalms. AnonMoos (talk) 03:44, 19 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

There are many words taught in phonics classes as short o words when they are in fact words with the aw sound, including dog, frog, and song. Listen to these words. They have the aw sound, not the short o sound as in the word not. Why are they taught as the short o sound?? Georgia guy (talk) 21:39, 18 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Before tackling a "Why?", can you provide a citation in support of your statement? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:37, 18 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Pronunciation of English words across the globe is very diverse. Here in Australia, dog, frog, and song all have exactly the same vowel sound as not. HiLo48 (talk) 00:38, 19 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

In the American south, "dog" can sound like "dah-ohg" (often spelled "dawg"), which is pretty near a long o. But if phonics calls it a short o, that could be a default for not a long o (as in cope, dope, rope, etc.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:10, 19 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Georgia_guy -- we have articles on Cot-caught merger and Father-bother merger. It would be nice to know where your "idiolect" stands with respect to those changes. Also, phonics is a method of teaching reading, while phonetics is the study of speech sounds. AnonMoos (talk) 03:37, 19 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

The OP question seems to be about the cot-caught merger. From the OP's question I would surmise that he does not have the merger in his dialect and therefore distinguishes those sounds (as I do). A large percentage of the US population speaks those vowels identically, and in fact I find when talking to such people about it, that in many cases they claim to be unable to distinguish them, even when listening to them enunciated by someone who does clearly produce them differently. So when you say "listen to these words", you are going to get very different responses depending on the dialect that your listener speaks. Most people who grew up west of the Rockies will say "cot" and "caught" have the same vowel. CodeTalker (talk) 04:04, 19 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

This east coast American would say "caht", "cawt", "naht", "dawg", "frahg", and "sawng". "Frawg" sounds Southern. Jmar67 (talk) 10:25, 19 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Deputy Dawg anyone?

The OP's question has nothing to do with the cot-caught merger, nor with the bother-father merger (bomb-balm merger). Whether the OP makes a distinction between caught and cot (I guess they do), and whether they make a distinction between bomb and balm (I guess they don't), they may still ask their question, because they are not aware of the distinction between GA (General American) accent and the British one.

The GA speakers pronounce the "o" of "dog" and "song" (and "loss" and "off" and "cloth"), as a long one, i.e. DAWg (like the vowel of "dawn") and SAWng (like the vowel of "saw"), i.e. like the long "o" of "bought", as opposed to the short one of "cot". However, the Brits pronounce the "o" of "dog" and "song" (and "loss" and "off" and "cloth"), as a short one, i.e. like that of "cot", as opposed to the long one of "bought". Hope this helps. Umzu (talk) 20:06, 19 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

I understand, except that "long o" is a phrase everyone understands as referring to the vowel in "boat", and can be a little confusing if you use it to mean the sound in "bought". Georgia guy (talk) 20:42, 19 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

All right, I've just removed the confusing words from my first response (by striking them out). BTW, was I correct about what I assumed about you and the cot-caught merger and the bomb-balm merger? Umzu (talk) 22:13, 19 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Yes. The vowel in caught sounds darker, and that is an easy-to-see difference. But for father and bother, they have the same vowel sound; I grew up perceiving them as such barring the fact that dictionaries often distinguished them despite being the same sound in American dialects. Georgia guy (talk) 22:51, 19 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Yep. English is wonderful. Millions of speakers of the "same" language all over the world, and some of us still can't understand one another. HiLo48 (talk) 00:04, 20 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

A British colleague of mine used to quote the old joke that England and America are "two countries divided by a common language." But it may not be limited to just those two. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:26, 21 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

The joke is commonly attributed to George Bernard Shaw. Oscar Wilde wrote "We have really everything in common with America nowadays, except, of course, language.". Dbfirs 07:49, 21 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

• This is about the lot-cloth split. The vowels in the word "hot dog" are different on the American East Coast, while Received Pronunciation treats them the same and the West Coast has an additional merger with the aw-vowel. Judging from the username, the OP seems to be from Georgia, which is probably why he has a question like that. Due the influence of Hollywood, the California accent is considered fairly neutral, so maybe some teachers will teach English without the merger. --94.134.89.230 (talk) 22:25, 21 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

This morning I heard a TV news presenter say "You can't help but not feel for the victims".

Is "You can't help but not X" a recognised expression? It seems rather tortuously convoluted, and on the face of it seems to be saying that X is the thing you won't do, yet I sense they're wanting to say that X is the thing you will do. Had she said "You can't help but not feel for the victims", I'd have had no issue.

Is it in the same class as "Let's see if we can't Z", actually meaning "Let's see if we can Z"?

Am I parsing these expressions properly, or are they unparseable and must be accepted in their entirety? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:13, 20 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

In my opinion the presenter just made a mistake. --76.69.116.93 (talk) 22:15, 20 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

If the presenter "just made a mistake", then this raise questions such as whether such mistakes are unusually common (and if they are, then why), and whether such mistakes can easily go unnoticed (and ditto). The phenomenon often comes up at Language Log; see "misnegation". -- Hoary (talk) 22:23, 20 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

"Let's see if we can't..." is kind of reverse psychology. "You can't help but not..." is ignorant. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:24, 21 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

To say that this or that expression "is ignorant" doesn't seem to me to elucidate anything about it. The questioner isn't asking for a value judgment. The NOW corpus has several tokens of "can't help but not" (tip: you have to input "can't" as "ca n't") and a quick glance shows that most if not all are examples of what the denizens of Language Log call misnegation, seemingly intended to say something very different from what they more literally mean. A psycholinguist might wonder how it was that so many managed to get into print, or how it is that so many sound kind-of reasonablish until one starts to think about them. -- Hoary (talk) 03:19, 21 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Like I said, ignorant... Ignorance of the literal meaning of what they're saying. Another common example being, "I could care less..." If the word "ignorant" bothers you, how about "not paying attention". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:08, 21 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

I wonder how you can mind-read ignorance, Bugs. Are the speakers paying attention? Though I can guess, I don't claim to know that either. ¶ Jack of Oz, when you ask if these are unparseable, I think you're asking if they're non-compositional. They are indeed non-compositional. Here (found via NOW) is an interesting example:

And for all the rest of you, I hope that tonight can be the beginning of something, so that even if we see each other across the corporate battle lines one day, that you will know that I am rooting for you. I can’t help but not. Because I am a partner by trade, and a mother and a sister by design. And I am so proud to be on this journey with you.

It's within what appears to be an impassioned but carefully phrased monologue, embedded within an article by somebody else. Judged against my own idiolect, "but not" is here a mistake for "but do so" or similar. I don't rush to assume that other lects are like mine in classing "but not" as a mistake here. But I'll make a working assumption for now (an assumption I'd be happy to see contradicted) that yes, calling "but not" a mistake is indeed a mainstream opinion among speakers of L1 standard English. ¶ So far, so uninteresting. The more interesting question is: If indeed it is a mistake, then how did it get past the proofreading process of (I vaguely infer) large-budget TV drama? ¶ Very simply, it appears that speakers/writers of L1 standard English, including those who are at least moderately alert, are curiously prone to misnegation errors. If you don't think that TV drama gets much in the way of proofreading, then OK, try the NYT, and:

Nor does it mean that Trump doesn't lack his own kind of strengths, not the least of which is his loudly declared indifference to elite opinion.

which comes to us via this page, which in turn comes via the Language Log misnegation link that I provided earlier and that I again recommend. -- Hoary (talk) 07:59, 21 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I left out the possibility that it might not be as much ignorance as just plain not caring. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:46, 21 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

I would mention the phrases: "I don't want nothing" indicating that nothing is desired, yet accurately read meaning that something unnamed is desired or "I can't get no satisfaction" which is supposed to mean that that satisfaction cannot be obtained but is in fact directing toward the opposite, another would be "I almost feel sorry for X" which is supposed to mean that you feel sorry for X but again in fact indicates that you have not yet reached a point of sympathy (the latter is common in South African speech). All of these as well as the original is simply lack of education of the masses bleeding into the common tongue. This is part of the evolution of language, some, though few, of the changes seen are welcomed, but we are fairly powerless to stop this shift. Many of the modern changes I have seen creeping in I personally blame on rap and hip hip music. Anton 81.131.40.58 (talk) 09:35, 21 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

See double negative. A representative of the Labour Party, discussing what could be done to curb anti-semitism in the party on the BBC, said "We need anti-semitism in the party." 62.30.198.76 (talk) 14:51, 21 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

That malapropism reminds me of a comment supposedly made by Chicago's Mayor Daley during the 1968 Democratic Convention police riot: "The police are not there to create disorder; they're there to preserve disorder." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:48, 21 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

@ Anton: I know what you mean. The word "entitled" has quite quickly acquired a meaning completely at odds with its proper meaning, at least when used attributively. It now means "pertaining to one who is perceived to act as if they have a right to something" rather than "pertaining to one who does have a right to something". Ridiculous. I'm tempted to say I'm entitled to be outraged at this development, but shrink from making such a statement for fear I'd be widely misinterpreted. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 17:55, 21 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

• Fortunately, this new use of "entitled" is distinguishable in most cases because it is not completed by to. "Person A is entitled to the glory he has earned; person B is (= acts) entitled and should be viewed with suspicion." Of course, the old use sometimes is not completed as well. --76.69.116.93 (talk) 18:14, 21 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

• That's why I mentioned the attributive use. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 18:28, 21 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Some forum pages about the this construction: Language Log - "You can't help but not be worried", Language Log - "How can you (not) help but (not) __?" and English Forums - "Can't Help But Not". Alansplodge (talk) 18:11, 21 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

I'm going to create two stub articles related to My Little Pony at the Faroese Wikipedia. I proposed them in English at fo:Wikipedia:Undirhúsið#My Little Pony, but I've got no response yet. Could someone fluent in Faroese translate the drafts into Faroese for me? JSH-alive/^{talk/cont/mail} 14:00, 23 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

If you can't write in Faroese, then why do you wan to contribute to that dictionary ? SinisterLefty (talk) 14:56, 23 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

JSH-alive -- I don't want to gang up on you, but if you're not capable of writing basic present-tense active-voice single-clause affirmative sentences in a language, then you're simply not capable of contributing usefully to that language's Wikipedia (though you might be able to perform some useful technical maintenance tasks, such as replacing a raster version of an image with its vector SVG, etc.). My ability to write Arabic sentences is pretty rudimentary, but I was capable of contributing to Arabic Wikipedia during a period over ten years ago when it lacked any articles on many basic subjects such as "Flag of Syria" -- writing minimal stubs appropriately illustrated with flag images was within my capabilities. However, I withdrew from Arabic Wikipedia long ago, and some of the mini-stubs I started there are now lengthy articles, beyond my ability to usefully edit... AnonMoos (talk) 19:48, 23 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

I'm willing to correct "John Hopkins University" to "Johns Hopkins University" on any of the Wikipedias. It is rare for an article to transliterate the University name into the local alphabet (though something like Universidad John Hopkins is reasonable). If there is a cite with "publisher=John Hopkins University", even if the article itself is something I don't understand at all, I'll change it.Naraht (talk) 21:28, 24 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

One of the better remembered dialogues from The Hunt for Red October (film) is

Bill Steiner: "Hey I think someone just shot a torpedo at us!"

Capt. Bart Mancuso: "No shit, Buckwheat, now get the hell out of here!"

Apparently Mancuso uses the term "buckwheat" in the meaning of "smartass" or similar. But I have not found this usage as an insult anywhere else?! Where does it originate from? --KnightMove (talk) 12:23, 24 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Billie Thomas... -- AnonMoos (talk) 14:48, 24 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

For those in a hurry, from that linked article: "The character of Buckwheat in later years became synonymous with the derogatory "pickaninny" stereotype".

See also: Basketball coach calls black player 'Buckwheat,' says he was unaware of 'racial context' Alansplodge (talk) 15:34, 24 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Unaware of the racial context? That boy's got a serious gap in his education. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:08, 24 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Was he actually trying to say the guy was cluelessly stating the obvious? "Huckleberry" or "Rube" would have been a good alternative. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:10, 24 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Agreed, but I think the standard would be "No shit, Sherlock!", for the alliteration, if nothing else. Ha - it's got its own entry on Wiktionary! Matt Deres (talk) 17:26, 24 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the info. But now I wonder even more what the character Mancuso wants to express with applying this term to a White adult man. --KnightMove (talk) 18:07, 24 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

That he isn't very smart. I would have used Captain Obvious, as it fits the situation best. SinisterLefty (talk) 19:26, 24 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Well, that's the first level of connotation, but it's a bit of a broken metaphor. Minus the racial stereotype, it doesn't really mean that much. Matt Deres (talk) 19:55, 24 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

It is possible that the use of "Buckwheat" wasn't in reference to the original Little Rascals character but the Eddie Murphy character on Saturday Night Live. Eddie Murphy created his own version of Buckwheat on SNL. That character was often confused by the obvious and, when he realized what was happening, he would say "Otay." That was popular from the early to mid 80's. Hunt For Red October was developed in the late 80's. It wasn't long before nobody really remembered or referenced the Eddie Murphy character. So, currently displaced by 30 years, I can see how the reference would be very forgettable. 12.207.168.3 (talk) 11:39, 25 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

There is a phrase which I believe to be common and to be related to the actor Humphrey Bogard and which reads along the lines of "Don't Bogard that steak." or "Don't Bogard those drinks." meaning that one should share rather than hoard. What is the origin of this phrase please? Is it to do with Humphrey as suspected and if so how and why? Any further information would be appreciated. Thanks Anton 81.131.40.58 (talk) 13:57, 24 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

I've heard it derives from Humphrey Bogart smoking his cigarettes to the hilt. --KnightMove (talk) 14:27, 24 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Anton, you'll find it easier to search for stuff if you bother to spell it correctly: bogart. Matt Deres (talk) 15:21, 24 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

EO says the same thing. It has to do with monopolizing something, specifically a joint.[1] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:06, 24 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

As famously referenced in the song Don't Bogart Me by The Fraternity of Man, featured on the soundtrack of Easy Rider: "Don't Bogart that joint, my friend. Pass it over to me." {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.177.55 (talk) 00:21, 25 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Please, what does this advert say? https://www.google.com/maps/place/Vorgashor,+Komi+Republic,+Russia,+169933/@67.588249,63.811028,3a,81.1y,90t/data=!3m8!1e2!3m6!1sAF1QipNhJsnz7hHKkLqzs7CzW0_jYJGK3Y2otlSzEZYh!2e10!3e12!6shttps:%2F%2Flh5.googleusercontent.com%2Fp%2FAF1QipNhJsnz7hHKkLqzs7CzW0_jYJGK3Y2otlSzEZYh%3Dw203-h134-k-no!7i1024!8i680!4m13!1m7!3m6!1s0x4487a06d67e7d2f1:0xab8d791f28340b52!2sYurshor,+Komi+Republic,+Russia,+169915!3b1!8m2!3d67.610278!4d64.0019439!3m4!1s0x44879e3ecc402fe5:0xaf2526183ee0dcf9!8m2!3d67.5882212!4d63.810997 Thanks Anton 81.131.40.58 (talk) 15:19, 24 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

You mean:

Люди твои Россия

Люди твои Воркута?

It says:

'Your people, Russia

Your people, Vorkuta',

However, for context or explanation (or confirmation/specification), maybe you rather wait for natives. --Galtzaile (talk) 15:46, 24 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

In my wife's LDS Hymnal, there are at least three hymns that rhyme (in situations where the other verses clearly have rhyming words) the words "Lord" and "Word". In my Dialect (Mid Atlantic USA), they aren't rhyming words to me at all. "Lord" rhymes with "poured" and "Word" with "bird". Is there some other dialect of English (or historical dialect) where they are at least somewhat closer to rhyming? (I'd have to go back and research for the specific hymns, but I'm pretty sure that there are at least three).Naraht (talk) 21:19, 24 June 2019 (UTC) Found at least three:1) With All the Power of Heart and Tongue, 2) From All That Dwell below the Skies, 3) Sweet Is the WorkReply

The words may have rhymed in some cases during at least part of the Middle English period (as far as I can tell), but I would doubt that any significant relevant dialect existed in the times and places most relevant to Mormonism (i.e. the United States from the mid-19th century to the present). It's probably just one of the "eye rhymes" popular during the Victorian period (e.g. "wind" (noun) and "mind")... AnonMoos (talk) 23:06, 24 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

"Eye rhyme", yes. "Lord" doesn't audibly rhyme with "word", but to this American it doesn't rhyme with "poured" either. Lord rhymes with gourd or gored, while poured rhymes with Ford. However, in old songs (recordings from a century ago) they audibly rhymed "wind" (noun) with "mind". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:08, 25 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

[Edit Conflict] One also finds (or found half a century ago) a fair few of these in the Methodist Hymn-Book, many of whose lyrics were written in the late 18th as well as in the 19th century. (Though not from a practising Christian family, I attended a Methodist school for seven years.)

I suspect in some instances the writers were employing older pronunciations that though superceded would still have been remembered or known at the time of writing, perhaps from their preservation in works by writers like William Shakespeare and John Milton. In the former's As You Like It the song 'Blow, blow, thou winter wind' continues with 'Thou art not so unkind', and I have heard performances rhyming 'wind' with (the modern) 'kind'.

The same pronunciation survives in the archaic verb 'wind' in the sense of 'blow' as in 'winding a horn, bugle etc.' which like the noun derives from the prehistoric German noun *windaz, itself stemming from PIE *went-. ('Wind' in the sense of 'wrap' or 'meander', though also rhyming, comes instead from prehistoric German *windan.)

As for 'Lord' and 'word', I think these are still close to rhymes in some (fast vanishing) West-Country English dialects, so I would not rule out a particular mid-19th century Mormon hymn writer speaking (and hence writing) thus, since in that period immigration from the British Isles was still ongoing, and 'American' dialects and accents 170 years ago were not necessarily what they are now. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.177.55 (talk) 01:17, 25 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Prompted by this thread (permanent link) or this one (dynamic link): What does "дворовые песни" (or "дворо́вая песня" in the singular) mean, how would you translate it? "песня" obviously means "song", it is "дворовый" I'm interested in. Here are Wiktionary's translations, but none of them quite clarify, to me, what kind of songs "дворовые песни" are. Thank you in advance! ---Sluzzelin talk 21:48, 24 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Found a source here that discusses the phenomenon (p102) and translates it as "courtyard folk songs", which seems reasonable. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 23:43, 24 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I was wondering what are the differences between to abide, to bear and to stand. I assume in the negative they mean the same. But in the positive they don’t. I’d appreciate any help. Thanks! Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 12:03, 25 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

They are similar in usage, but have different meaning in the use of "I cannot X this." Abide: Allow it to exist. Bear: Suffer through it. Stand: Support it. In use, they all mean that you don't support whatever it is. You can use whichever term you like the most, but if you want to be very exact, you use abide if it doesn't truly affect you. You use bear if it does affect you. You use stand if it is something you are expected to support. 12.207.168.3 (talk) 12:11, 25 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

In my own judgement (which may or may not be representative of many speakers of L1 English):

(1) "I can't abide/bear/stand the racket from upstairs."

(2) "Can you bear/stand/^?abide the racket from upstairs."

(3) *"I can abide/bear/stand the sound of the radio from upstairs."

(The asterisk means "ungramatical". A question mark means "dubious".)

If sentence (2) were clearly grammatical with abide, I'd say: Simple, each of these three verbs is a negative polarity item (NPI). However, it sounds odd. My first guess is that "can't abide" is more fossilized an idiom than "can't bear" and "can't stand" are. (As it is, in my English at least, "can't" in (1) can't be replaced by "don't".)

As an NPI, one of these verbs can't be used in a positive declarative sentence in this sense (or anyway can't without sounding archaic). It can of course be used in other senses:

(4) "I'll abide by the judgement."

(5) "The columns bore all the weight."

(6) "The decision still stands."

I presume that Wiktionary and the like will explain. -- Hoary (talk) 12:24, 25 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. Could you give an example of the usage of abide? I am not a native speaker, and I hadn’t seen that word until very recently. Thanks. Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]}