Comments on: DA for the 15th of May

By: NC

NC — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 02:30:28 +0000

Thanks for dropping by Mr. Hat! The love of linguistics and love for humanity on display on your wonderful blog is truly infectious.

By: language hat

language hat — Fri, 29 May 2009 15:01:43 +0000

I checked my trusty Daniel Jones English Pronouncing Dictionary, and he gives identical pronunciations /lɔ:/, but for lore he also gives (in square brackets, meaning "less frequent") the pronunciation /lɔǝ/. It would seem most speakers of non-rhotic English (i.e., not pronouncing /r/) say them identically, but some preserve a distinction, as we can see from the comments here.

By: AS

AS — Tue, 26 May 2009 08:55:49 +0000

Dictionary.com also shows different pronunciations here:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lore

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/law

I’d be pretty sure, though, that Australian English speech, with its thorough dislike of the “r” sound at the end of words, would not distinguish between law and lore, just as pastor and pasta are indistinguishable in ordinary speech.

By: NC

NC — Tue, 26 May 2009 01:20:35 +0000

Fascinating stuff, RB. This sort of discussion is meat and drink over at the Language Hat blog. I have been lurking there for about a year ever since I discovered the link from here. The erudition on display there is awesome, so I haven’t had enough courage to post there yet. If anybody can shed light on this matter, someone there can I’m sure.

By: RB

RB — Mon, 25 May 2009 09:40:26 +0000

NC, you’d think there would be standardisation of phonetic symbols between my Shorter Oxford and your Oxford Dictionary website, wouldn’t you? If so, you’d be wrong! They’re completely different!

My Shorter Oxford makes the claim that “The pronunciations given are those in use in the educated speech of southern England (the so-called ‘Received Standard’)”, which seems to be making a value judgment of the sort you don’t like to make!

I tried your Cambridge Dictionary link. Agree it shows same lore/law vowel sound for Brit, but not for US. Not that I want to use US pronunciation to bolster my case! I’d have to be very desperate to do that!

By: NC

NC — Mon, 25 May 2009 07:02:48 +0000

Oops. I meant “lore” and “law” of course.

By: NC

NC — Mon, 25 May 2009 07:01:35 +0000

That’s very interesting, RB. I am intrigued by the fact that the Shorter Oxford shows different pronunciation symbols for the vowels in”lore” and “law”. The Oxford Dictionary website has a description of these symbols (International Phonetic Alphabet, I think) at http://www.askoxford.com/contactus/wotd/pron/?view=uk
I can see the symbols clearly on my computer, but I don’t know if you have to have a special font installed or not. It lists the short and long vowels, diphthongs and two triphthongs. The long vowels are distinguished from the short by an extra symbol that looks something like a colon. The British pronunciation represents “the standard accent of English as spoken in the south of England (sometimes called Received Pronunciation or RP)” which could obviously be very different in other regions.

However, if you type “lore” and “lore” into the online Cambridge Dictionary site http://dictionary.cambridge.org/ it shows the pronunciation for Britain and USA, using what seems to be IPA symbols. And this shows the vowel sound to be identical for the two words (different though between Brit. & US). There is however an extra superscript r (right way up) for the Brit. pronunciation of “lore” which seems to me to indicate a very faint echo of the r is pronounced (unlike the US where the r is there to be pronounced as a normal r). I will try to track down a copy of the Shorter Oxford Dictionary to see what I make of it.

By: RB

RB — Fri, 22 May 2009 03:38:21 +0000

NC, having just somewhat belatedly consulted my copy of The Shorter Oxford (published 1992) I have found support for my contention that “law” and “lore” are (can be? should be?) pronounced differently. I can’t reproduce those funny symbols used in the phonetic system, but the Shorter Oxford shows that the vowel sound is different (“law” has a single vowel sound as in “walk”; “lore” has a diphthong vowel sound) and also the ending is different (there is an extra phonetic symbol on the end of “lore” – it’s an upside-down r – although the r is not pronounced as such). This pretty much coincides with the way I pronounce “law” and “lore” (regardless of what my wife thinks!)

By: RB

RB — Wed, 20 May 2009 08:49:47 +0000

NC, I don’t have an answer for how the phrase “was struck in graciousness” impinges on the direct clue. The only part of the clue that I would classify as the direct clue is the first two words, “his ego”, from which we presumably are meant to infer that the answer is a male with an ego. So perhaps not the the best &lit we’ll ever see, but the neatness of the wordplay elevates it far above stinkers like “kite-surfer” (fit user ……) from a few weeks ago!

By: NC

NC — Wed, 20 May 2009 05:10:21 +0000

RB, thanks for the explanation for 12A. I must try to remember that a closing ! is often the hint that the clue is an &lit. Now you have pointed it out, I agree that Narcissus+ego=graciousness is nice, and the word play is now clear. However, I can’t quite get my head around the direct clue (presumably the whole clue) and what the phrase “was struck in graciousness” is supposed to mean. But never mind, a cystal clear and succint &lit is a rare bird indeed.

Thanks also for sharing your language background. My great-grandfather was from Bolton, but I’ve never visited the UK (yet). I love hearing the different pronunciations of English in Australia and throughout the world, and try to take the attitude the no pronunciations are wrong, just alternatives (“non-standard” is the most judgmental I am prepared to get). I even manage to suppress a shudder when I hear “nucular”. Let a thousand flowers bloom! (although Wikipedia tells me that is a misquotation)…