0
   

The most common pronunciation of "would" in "I would like to"

 
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 May, 2011 04:55 am
@MontereyJack,
MontereyJack wrote:
If we're being very precise, or formal, or really want to stress it, it would be "wood"/
I am very confident
that anyone and everyone who I 've heard use that word
did so INDISTINGUISHABLY from lumber.

It is: "wood".

That "sofa" stuff is foolishness.




David
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 May, 2011 08:29 am
Listen to some actual conversations, David. English is notorious for reducing unstressed vowels to the schwa--the last vowel sound in "sofa".
MontereyJack
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 May, 2011 08:45 am
David, now there's a perfect example of inconsistency. You decline to use spellings that are common and that people read with no trouble that derive from past pronunciations of words or foreign derivation, in favor of spellings that people have to pause and decode and are consequently irritating and impede communication, BUT while English makes something like 99.5% of its plurals simply by adding "s", you use "fora", the more obscure plural of "forum", rather than the obvious logical and consistant and first form "forums". Language use is not supposed to be a continuous exercise in annoyance. Yours is.
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 May, 2011 09:32 am
@MontereyJack,
Quote:
BUT while English makes something like 99.5% of its plurals simply by adding "s", you use "fora", the more obscure plural of "forum", rather than the obvious logical and consistant and first form "forums".


Examples like 'fora' are pedantry, in the most pejorative sense of the word. Note that for these pedants these plurals only apply when the words are from those languages that are mistakenly viewed as being associated with "high" learning eg. Latin/Greek.

All the words that have come to English from all the other languages follow, naturally, the rules of English. Actually, so do the Latin and Greek words.

Most of the words that have come from Latin and Greek are now English derivatives, ie. they are not at all like the original Latin and Greek words.

If we are supposed to follow a foreign language's rule for making plurals, then why wouldn't we follow all their rules. That would, of course, make all these derived words incorrect. According to the logic of these pedants, we would have to excise all these words from the English language.

There's a very sound reason why this hasn't happened. English is not Latin nor is it Greek, nor does it follow the rules of either Latin or Greek.

There's an even sounder reason for that. English speakers don't know the rules of other languages. If we did we would be fluent in all languages.

Suggesting that we have to use the Greek or Latin plural forms for words that are no longer Greek or Latin is really one of the most ludicrous prescriptions ever.

Do we follow the Japanese, Swahili, Yoruba, Bantu, Aborigine, Bushman, Arabic, Chinese, Korean, Thai, Burmese, Etruscan, Finnish, Swedish, ... rules for making plural forms?

Do we follow the Japanese, Swahili, Yoruba, Bantu, Aborigine, Bushman, Arabic, Chinese, Korean, Thai, Burmese, Etruscan, Finnish, Swedish, ... rules relating to gender?
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 May, 2011 01:20 pm
@MontereyJack,
MontereyJack wrote:
Listen to some actual conversations, David.
Yeah, as if I have not.





David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 May, 2011 01:35 pm
@MontereyJack,
MontereyJack wrote:
David, now there's a perfect example of inconsistency.
Candor n honor move me to confess to inconsistency in speech, for multiple reasons.
I have taken a liberal vu of it.
I have never pledged allegiance to the rules.





MontereyJack wrote:
You decline to use spellings that are common
I 've never felt much of a lust to be "one of the boys".
I don 't wanna be Mr. Popularity, nor a follower of fashion.



MontereyJack wrote:
and that people read with no trouble that derive from past pronunciations of words or foreign derivation, in favor of spellings that people have to pause and decode and are consequently irritating and impede communication, BUT while English makes something like 99.5% of its plurals simply by adding "s", you use "fora",
Note the conspicuous flaw in your reasoning: forum is NOT an "English" word.
Therefore, English usages do not apply.




MontereyJack wrote:
the more obscure plural of "forum", rather than the obvious logical and consistant and first form "forums".
Language use is not supposed to be a continuous exercise in annoyance. Yours is.
It saddens me that u have been annoyed (but not enuf to move me to disregard logic).
I have better loyalty to IT than to u.





David
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 May, 2011 01:39 pm
@JTT,
Quote:
BUT while English makes something like 99.5% of its plurals simply by adding "s", you use "fora", the more obscure plural of "forum", rather than the obvious logical and consistant and first form "forums".
JTT wrote:
Examples like 'fora' are pedantry,
In my hierarchy of values, that is low; not important.
My allegiance is to accurate logic, like to accurate math.





David
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 May, 2011 02:21 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
Note the conspicuous flaw in your reasoning: forum is NOT an "English" word.
Therefore, English usages do not apply.


Yes, 'forum' is an English word. It's pronounced according to the sounds of English - you couldn't pronounce Latin words properly if you tried.

The description in etymonline.com show that you are mistaken, as would most dictionary entries. Notice the word 'from', Dave. That tells the language it came from, not what language presently uses it.

forum mid-15c., "place of assembly in ancient Rome," from L. forum "marketplace, open space, public place,"

There are numerous new meanings that have come from ex-Latin words, including 'Latin' that never existed as meanings in the original language.

As Latin is a dead language, 'forum' can't be Latin.

You spout the word 'logic' a great deal, Om, but you all too often do not employ it. This is a classic example.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 May, 2011 03:33 pm
@JTT,
David wrote:
Note the conspicuous flaw in your reasoning: forum is NOT an "English" word.
Therefore, English usages do not apply.


JTT wrote:
Yes, 'forum' is an English word.
Really?? I thawt that the Forum Romanum was situate
between the Capitoline and the Palatine Hills.






JTT wrote:
It's pronounced according to the sounds of English - you couldn't pronounce Latin words properly if you tried.
I can pronounce "forum". Lots of people can.







JTT wrote:
The description in etymonline.com show that you are mistaken, as would most dictionary entries.
Notice the word 'from', Dave.
That tells the language it came from, not what language presently uses it.
I infer that u deem that to be significant!?






JTT wrote:
forum mid-15c., "place of assembly in ancient Rome," from L. forum "marketplace, open space, public place,"

There are numerous new meanings that have come from ex-Latin words,
including 'Latin' that never existed as meanings in the original language.

As Latin is a dead language, 'forum' can't be Latin.
I don't see Y not.
Perhaps u will reveal the reason.
The dead language is full of words, of which ONE is: FORUM, whose plural was and is: fora.







JTT wrote:
You spout the word 'logic' a great deal, Om, but you all too often do not employ it. This is a classic example.
I might fall into error 1ce in a while, but I don't see that I did this time, JTT.

Please express your differences of opinion.





David
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 May, 2011 03:52 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
Really?? I thawt that the Forum Romanum was situate
between the Capitoline and the Palatine Hills.


These appeals you make to "logic" are really silly, Dave. That's not the main meaning of the word 'forum' as the English language uses it. Note that you've used a capital to describe that meaning of forum.

Quote:
I can pronounce "forum". Lots of people can.


People who think they can pronounce words as native speakers do are seriously deluding themselves. Why is it that people sound "foreign"?

Quote:
The dead language is full of words, of which ONE is: FORUM, whose plural was and is: fora.


That's correct, the dead language. The living one, English, doesn't follow the rules of dead languages. If it did, we wouldn't split infinitives.

Note that you don't follow the rules for plurals for the Japanese words that have come into English or the thousands upon thousands of other words that have come to us from other languages. Note too that you have avoided this issue because it conflicted with your sense of "logic".

You, the general you, [y'all] but also you specifically, Dave, don't write these Japanese words as the Japanese do, and y'all certainly don't pronounce them as the Japanese do. It's the same for all the words that have come from other languages.

Logic is logic, Dave. If you were actually following/applying some manner of real logic, it wouldn't have taken you this much time to reply to the other issues that have arisen in this thread.

OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 May, 2011 04:03 pm
@JTT,
JTT wrote:
Logic is logic, Dave. If you were actually following/applying some manner of real logic,
it wouldn't have taken you this much time to reply to the other issues that have arisen in this thread.
I hope that I have not hurt your feelings by my delay in responding to them, JTT.
I will endeavor to attend to them within the next 24 hours; please accept my sincere apologies.





David
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 May, 2011 04:10 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
I'm not trying to rush you at all, Dave. I was just pointing out your illogic. Don't neglect the present topic.
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 May, 2011 04:36 pm
conversation between David and me:
Quote:
MontereyJack wrote:
Listen to some actual conversations, David. David replied:
Yeah, as if I have not.



No, David, you haven't, You haven't listened to the actual phonetics in the conversation, you haven't heard the sounds people ACTUALLY use. your brain parses it into words whose forms are conditioned by your reading knowledge, among other things. If people aren't stressing it the word comes out not "wood" but "wuhd"--the "uh" to be taken as a schwa.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 May, 2011 06:31 pm
@MontereyJack,
MontereyJack wrote:

conversation between David and me:
Quote:
MontereyJack wrote:
Listen to some actual conversations, David. David replied:
Yeah, as if I have not.


No, David, you haven't, You haven't listened to the actual phonetics in the conversation, you haven't heard the sounds people ACTUALLY use. your brain parses it into words whose forms are conditioned by your reading knowledge, among other things. If people aren't stressing it the word comes out not "wood" but "wuhd"--the "uh" to be taken as a schwa.
Your assertions concerning what I have not heard r false.
Thay r incorrect assumptions.
I have been more alert all my life than the credit u give me.

Your allegations qua vocal practices r inconsistent with observed fact
(aurally observed fact) over many decades. Hence: I cannot credit those allegations.





David
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 May, 2011 07:30 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Native speakers are notorious for not being able to see and grasp what goes on in their language, David, and you are no different.

As I recall, correct me if I'm wrong but you recently said that you don't go for the old prescription about split infinitives and your reason was that that described Latin but not English.

OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 May, 2011 07:35 pm
@JTT,
JTT wrote:
Native speakers are notorious for not being able to see and grasp what goes on in their language, David,
and you are no different.
I am skeptical of your allegation, JTT.




JTT wrote:
As I recall, correct me if I'm wrong but you recently said that you don't go for the old prescription about split infinitives
and your reason was that that described Latin but not English.
U r right. I said that.
I ratify it. When we speak English, we need not be concerned
with the rules of grammar (the syntactical dispostion of words in sentences) of alien languages,
but when we use alien words we r speaking that language, however briefly.
Accordingly we shoud use those words as thay exist, by the rules of those words.
Hence, the plural of forum remains fora, not "forums".

Spare us the creation of mythological lexical monsters
with the heads of lions mounted on the bodies of sheep nor fish (figuratively speaking).

To my shame, I know that I remain late in paying u
the response that I O U. I will within the next few hours.





David
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 May, 2011 07:47 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
Native speakers are notorious for not being able to see and grasp what goes on in their language, David, and you are no different.


Quote:
I am skeptical of your allegation, JTT.


That doesn't change the veracity of the statement. The Longman Grammar of Written and Spoken English, the premier corpus study of the English language, takes great pains to point this out.

I see this all the time in the field of ESL/EFL. Teachers who were very ignorant of, not only how language works, but how it is actually used on a day to day basis.

Quote:
So these are the "language mavens." Their foibles can be blamed on two blind spots. One is a gross underestimation of the linguistic wherewithal of the common person. I am not saying that everything that comes out of a person's mouth or pen is perfectly rule-governed (remember Dan Quayle). But the language mavens would have a much better chance of not embarrassing themselves if they saved the verdict of linguistic incompetence as a last resort, rather than jumping to it as a first conclusion. The other blind spot is their complete ignorance of the modern science of language -- and I don't mean just the often-forbidding technicalities of Chomskyan theory, but basic knowledge of what kinds of constructions and idioms are found in English, and how people use them and pronounce them.


http://pinker.wjh.harvard.edu/articles/media/1994_01_24_thenewrepublic.html


Quote:
but when we use alien words we r speaking that language, however briefly.
Accordingly we shoud use those words as thay exist, by the rules of those words.


You think that by repeating something ignorant you can change it into something factual. It doesn't work that way, Dave.

You idea is nonsense because you only follow this "rule" for words that you happen to have learned. As I have mentioned, there are thousands of words that have come from other languages where you naturally inflect the plurals according to the rules of English, ie. you add an 's'.

Please tell me the rules for forming Japanese plurals, for Yoruba plurals, for Korean plurals, for ... plurals. Also, tell me all the words that have come from other languages and from which language each word comes so that I'll know that you are following the correct rules relating to plurals.

As I also said, if you think you are pronouncing these words as they said in the language they came from, you are sadly mistaken.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 May, 2011 04:59 pm
@JTT,
JTT wrote:
Native speakers are notorious for not being able to see and grasp what goes on
in their language, David, and you are no different.
David wrote:
I am skeptical of your allegation, JTT.
JTT wrote:
That doesn't change the veracity of the statement.
We AGREE on that, JTT. My skepticism has no effect on the veracity.



JTT wrote:
The Longman Grammar of Written and Spoken English,
the premier corpus study of the English language,
takes great pains to point this out.
Well, whether it does or not: your assertion is correct that the veracity is not affected by my skepticism.





JTT wrote:
I see this all the time in the field of ESL/EFL. Teachers who were very ignorant of,
not only how language works, but how it is actually used on a day to day basis.
Life is replete with many errors in all directions.
Those teachers shoud not necessarily be affected
in their professional practice by what thay see occurring around them.





Quote:
So these are the "language mavens." Their foibles can be blamed on two blind spots. One is a gross underestimation of the linguistic wherewithal of the common person. I am not saying that everything that comes out of a person's mouth or pen is perfectly rule-governed (remember Dan Quayle). But the language mavens would have a much better chance of not embarrassing themselves if they saved the verdict of linguistic incompetence as a last resort, rather than jumping to it as a first conclusion. The other blind spot is their complete ignorance of the modern science of language -- and I don't mean just the often-forbidding technicalities of Chomskyan theory, but basic knowledge of what kinds of constructions and idioms are found in English, and how people use them and pronounce them.


http://pinker.wjh.harvard.edu/articles/media/1994_01_24_thenewrepublic.html


David wrote:
but when we use alien words we r speaking that language, however briefly.
Accordingly we shoud use those words as thay exist, by the rules of those words.
JTT wrote:
You think that by repeating something ignorant
Can a "thing" be "ignorant", JTT??
Presumably all things (insentient non-living objects)
have no knowledge, including computers and books.

I believe that a being must be alive
in order to have knowledge.




JTT wrote:
you can change it into something factual.
Your allegation that I believe that is false, J.
Do u represent yourself to have telepathicly read my mind ?





JTT wrote:
It doesn't work that way, Dave.
Again, we agree; that is rare.




JTT wrote:
You idea is nonsense because you only follow this "rule"
for words that you happen to have learned.
Is that a non-sequitur, J ?
If I apply a rule only to words that I know
and I ignore words that I have never heard nor seen,
does that corrupt the logic of my application of that rule
to the words that I DO know??

If your answer is affirmative, will u explain your reasoning?






JTT wrote:
As I have mentioned, there are thousands of words that have come from other languages
where you naturally inflect the plurals according to the rules of English, ie. you add an 's'.
Offhand, I have no memory of ever having done that, J.
Do u have something specific in mind ?






JTT wrote:
Please tell me the rules for forming Japanese plurals, for Yoruba plurals, for Korean plurals, for ... plurals.
I don 't know any words in those languages, J.
I have not the slightest information of the rules of grammar
of thosse languages. Accordingly: I do not use those languages.






JTT wrote:
Also, tell me all the words that have come from other languages and from which language each word comes
That is too much work for me, J,
and it seems as tedious as it is unremunerated.
I will not comply with your demand.





JTT wrote:
so that I'll know that you are following the correct rules relating to plurals.
Re-iterating: I know not any words in the languages that u have indicated hereinabove
(i.e., Korean or Japanese, etc.) Maybe some Spanish & a little Latin (not much),
tho I pretend to no terrific expertise beyond what I have set forth.





JTT wrote:
As I also said, if you think you are pronouncing these words as they said in the language
they came from, you are sadly mistaken.
Et cetera? Forum? Fora?

What is your source of information
on your point concerning mispronunciation ??

HOW have u ascertained how I pronounce words ?





David
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 May, 2011 06:06 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
JTT wrote:
You idea is nonsense because you only follow this "rule"
for words that you happen to have "learned".



Quote:
Is that a non-sequitur, J ?
If I apply a rule only to words that I know
and I ignore words that I have never heard nor seen,
does that corrupt the logic of my application of that rule
to the words that I DO know??


Probably just devious behavior on your part.

What you "learned", I should have added quotes in my original to you, is specious nonsense.

Quote:
JTT wrote:
As I have mentioned, there are thousands of words that have come from other languages where you naturally inflect the plurals according to the rules of English, ie. you add an 's'.


Quote:
Offhand, I have no memory of ever having done that, J.
Do u have something specific in mind ?


Of course you don't because you haven't had someone specifically pound it into your head that such and such "should be the plural for X".

bronco, burro, burrito, cafeteria, chaps, coyote, corral, tsunami, shogun, vodka, commissar, Bolshevik, beluga, apricot, artichoke, ... .
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 May, 2011 01:15 am
@JTT,
JTT wrote:
You idea is nonsense because you only follow this "rule"
for words that you happen to have "learned".
David wrote:
Is that a non-sequitur, J ?
If I apply a rule only to words that I know
and I ignore words that I have never heard nor seen,
does that corrupt the logic of my application of that rule
to the words that I DO know??

JTT wrote:
Probably just devious behavior on your part.
From WHAT did I probably deviate ?





JTT wrote:
What you "learned", I should have added quotes in my original to you, is specious nonsense.
1. If u quote, then u r supposed to indicate the source of your quote, J.; i.e., what u quoted.

2. Do u allege that I do not know any words?





JTT wrote:
As I have mentioned, there are thousands of words that have come from other languages
where you naturally inflect the plurals according to the rules of English, ie. you add an 's'.


David wrote:
Offhand, I have no memory of ever having done that, J.
Do u have something specific in mind ?
JTT wrote:
Of course you don't because you haven't had someone
specifically pound it into your head that such and such "should be the plural for X".
I take it that u dispute my ability
to generate original thought (thawt) ??
Is that your point ?




JTT wrote:
bronco, burro, burrito, cafeteria, chaps, coyote, corral, tsunami, shogun, vodka,
commissar, Bolshevik, beluga, apricot, artichoke, ... .
Well, for the first 3, I believe
that in Spanish, thay just add an s to render a plural.
I 'm too ignorant to comment on Russian (e.g. "Bolshevik").
I don 't know from which language "apricot" derives.





David
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 08/17/2022 at 02:10:46