Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Great Vowel Shift

en.wikipedia.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 275 posts

Re: Great Vowel Shift

#231

Post by shemtay »

aesh2Xa1 wrote: post #189
forbiddenvoid wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then why not just say 'domain-specific meaning?' Term of art doesn't really have a clear meaning in general (native English speaker, and this is the first time I've heard this), and it's unclear/ambiguous as to what it actually indicates.

"Jargon" is a good word for this case.

"Jargon" sounds pejorative to me, and implies that the phrasing is difficult for outsiders to understand.

"Term of art" only implies that it is the specific phrasing used by practitioners to describe the matter at hand.

Re: Great Vowel Shift

#233

Post by seanvk »

One interesting side effect of the Great Vowel Shift occurred when the word Uisce Beatha (Whisk(e)y) was anglicized twice. It was first brought in during the Elizabethan period from Ireland as "Whiskey" and later re-brought in as "Whisky" in Scotland. I've often wondered if that is the same reason behind surname anglicization of Ceallaigh to "Kelley" and later "Kelly".

Re: Great Vowel Shift

#234

Post by ketralnis »

westoncb wrote: post #182
chc wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"A term in linguistics" is imprecise — it's also a term outside of linguistics. The phrase "term of art" means basically "I know that you think you know what this means based on the words, but it is a special defined term that means something particular in this field." It is generally used to correct someone who seems to be viewing a term of art as a common English phrase, so the precision is useful.

Seems like "idiomatic" already fits this perfectly. Is "term of art" in some way different? maybe has a more of a "you can't really understand it as an outsider," sense?: Idiomatic: A speech form or an expression of a given language that is peculiar to itself grammatically or cannot be understood from the individual meanings of its elements, as in keep tabs on. A specialized vocabulary used by a group of people; jarg…

"term of art" is a term of art in pedantry circles

Re: Great Vowel Shift

#235

Post by marzell »

danans wrote: post #222
fuzzer37 wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that the same thing as "D-Troit" verses "Duh-Troit" for Detroit? That's one of my favorites.

The pronunciation "dee-troit" is just local slang meant to sound folksy. It's used by sports announcers and singers, and for comedic value. Most of the time people in the area pronounce it the same way as the rest of the country pronounces it.

I think you're right there. But also going back, there was a more 'neutral' pronunciation of "deh-troit". I believe from there, we started getting "duh-troit" as a type of Schwa[1]. Again, I agree that there's a newer "DEE-troit" which is kind of like if you drew a line from "duh-troit" through "deh-troit" and kept going, then you'd get "DEE-troit".

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwa

Re: Great Vowel Shift

#236

Post by azepoi »

adamrezich wrote: post #98

related, but has anyone noticed younger Americans pronouncing a few specific types of words differently as of late? I'm 29 and grew up in the Midwest, so in my accent, when I say "button," the "tt" is nearly silent. however, at my last job doing remote web development, one guy who was a bit younger than me (and also American) would pronounce it "BUH 'in," with noticeable "stop" between the two syllables. I have since…

I notice s being pronounced sh. It shtrikes me as more frequent now.

Re: Great Vowel Shift

#237

Post by naniwaduni »

rootbear wrote: post #50
anticristi wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So basically English spelling is trapped in a local minimum. An small change will make spelling closer to some dialect, and further from most other dialects. The current situation is suboptimal for everyone, but at least it's a Nash equilibrium.

I personally think there's a lot of room for improvements that would work in nearly all English dialects. The "ough" mess, for example, could stand some clean up. But in general, yes, there is too much variation in English around the world to "fix" it now.

You're hitting the phonological analogue of Moravec's law: the "ough" mess is precisely the kind of thing that can't easily be simplified in a way that works across English dialects. It hits a wide swath of basic vocabulary that originally had a small range of slightly awkward pronunciations that diverged in descendant English. Different dialects don't split those pronunciations the same way.

The real low-hanging fruit is getting the British to give up on those spellings that follow a dead branch of French ;-)

Re: Great Vowel Shift

#238

Post by ascorbic »

coolreader18 wrote: post #162
gchucky wrote: post #3

The vowel shift is one of the major reasons why Shakespeare's poetry doesn't rhyme when spoken with modern English. There was a rather fascinating video that went around awhile back of a father and son demonstrating the changes.[1] [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPlpphT7n9s

It's funny, for at least the first example, original pronunciation just sounds like Hagrid from the Harry Potter movies, which is especially interesting considering that's intended to be a less formal/"lower class" accent. Reminds me of something I heard once that the modern american accent is actually closer to the british accent at the time of the revolutionary war, and it's the british accent that's changed more s…

Hagrid has a West Country accent. The character is supposed to come from the Forest of Dean, in Gloucestershire, and the accent is approximately from that area. The most obvious difference from RP English is that it has the rhotic "R", which is how it's closer to standard American and to historical English accents. The non-rhotic R is also found in the Boston accect ("hahvahd yahd").

Re: Great Vowel Shift

#239

Post by occamrazor »

EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK wrote: post #101
ajuc wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> especially its very large vocabulary Vocabulary isn't a problem IMHO. The fact that I have to learn each word twice (how to write it and how to say it) - is. I was learning German for 3 years at school. After the first month I had no problems with pronunciation. Now after almost 2 decades of not using it I can still pronounce any German word I see. I've been learning English since I was 10 or so. I'm 36 now. I stil…

It poses problem for native speakers as well. After all, there are no Spelling Bee competitions in France, or Germany ... or anywhere.

There are in French

Re: Great Vowel Shift

#240

Post by westoncb »

citizenkeen wrote: post #225
westoncb wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And there’s what I was looking for :) I did overlook that ‘idiom’ applies to a full language/dialect. I think you’re overstating your case though when you say “It does not have the sense of a specific technical meaning for a word, distinct from the ordinary definition”—since jargon is a synonym for one sense of idiom and idiomatic is less specific in the group/individual distinction (and yes it’s an adjective but you…

A lot of things are jargon that are not terms of art. When I was practicing law, a lot of people in my legal circles would jokingly refer to their spouses as their "domestic associates". That's not a term of art, but it is lawyer's jargon or an idiomatic expression.

That’s an interesting example, though I read it as a kind of parody of jargon rather than actual jargon. It’s a tricky case though since jargon also has multiple senses and your classification fits one of them.

I’m curious whether you would consider “domestic partnership” to be both jargon and a term of art (I would).

It’s interesting reviewing definitions of ‘jargon’: while you do find things like e.g. “ specialized technical terminology characteristic of a particular subject” —mostly you find references to incoherent/nonsensical speech.

Post reply on HN