English questions

[Raphael]

Do I get this right that when writing song lyrics, it's the norm to capitalize the first word of each line, even if it's not called for syntactically? Or am I misunderstanding something?

[hwhatting]

It's at least something I see frequently, also in poetry (except when written by poets who totally ignore capitalisation).
The same is quite usual also in German, BTW.

[Raphael]

It's at least something I see frequently, also in poetry (except when written by poets who totally ignore capitalisation).
The same is quite usual also in German, BTW.

Thank you!

Anyone else?

[Lērisama]

Do I get this right that when writing song lyrics, it's the norm to capitalize the first word of each line, even if it's not called for syntactically? Or am I misunderstanding something?

That's correct indeed.

[Raphael]

Do I get this right that when writing song lyrics, it's the norm to capitalize the first word of each line, even if it's not called for syntactically? Or am I misunderstanding something?

That's correct indeed.

Thank you, too!

[Travis B.]

Does anyone else have /əɪ/ in Eisenhower? It honestly feels quite odd for me to pronounce it with /aɪ/ for some reason.

[Man in Space]

Does anyone else have /əɪ/ in Eisenhower? It honestly feels quite odd for me to pronounce it with /aɪ/ for some reason.

Yes, that’s how I say it and perceive it (that is, it sounds wrong with /aɪ/).

[jal]

Does anyone else have /əɪ/ in Eisenhower? It honestly feels quite odd for me to pronounce it with /aɪ/ for some reason.

Yes, that’s how I say it and perceive it (that is, it sounds wrong with /aɪ/).

That's odd, as /aɪ/ is pretty much the established pronunciation?


JAL

[Travis B.]

Does anyone else have /əɪ/ in Eisenhower? It honestly feels quite odd for me to pronounce it with /aɪ/ for some reason.

Yes, that’s how I say it and perceive it (that is, it sounds wrong with /aɪ/).

That's odd, as /aɪ/ is pretty much the established pronunciation?

/aɪ/ feels like a spelling pronunciation to me, as if one were trying to directly pronounce the original German Eisenhauer as spelled.

[Travis B.]

Opinion question -- I realize unpalatalized /s/ and /z/ differently even when devoiced and one ignores things like vowel length allophony, as shown by peace /pis/ versus peas /piz/, which I would narrowly transcribe as [ˈpʰis̪] (the /s/ is realized as laminal dentialveolar) and [ˈpʰiːs] (the /z/ is realized as laminal alveolar). Should I adopt this convention in general, or is this too narrow of transcription and would be confusing to others?

[bradrn]

is this too narrow of transcription and would be confusing to others?

I think you passed that point a long time ago…

[Travis B.]

is this too narrow of transcription and would be confusing to others?

I think you passed that point a long time ago…

In essence you're saying I should go for it, because my transcriptions are already overly narrow so it would have no practical further impact.

[jal]

/aɪ/ feels like a spelling pronunciation to me, as if one were trying to directly pronounce the original German Eisenhauer as spelled.

Still, the pronunciation of that name is well-known, so why would you care about spelling pronunciations?


JAL

[Raphael]

Why does "to swear" mean both "to perform an oath or vow" and "to use vulgar language"?

[Travis B.]

Why does "to swear" mean both "to perform an oath or vow" and "to use vulgar language"?

Probably through "taking the Lord's name in vain".

[hwhatting]

Why does "to swear" mean both "to perform an oath or vow" and "to use vulgar language"?

Why not? What do you find so strange about it? E.g., both can use religious lexicon to enforce the oath or to make the swearing stronger.

[Raphael]

I'm not sure what connects them. And, one is fairly solemn, and one is fairly non-solemn.

[jal]

I'm not sure what connects them. And, one is fairly solemn, and one is fairly non-solemn.

Etyomonline says "The secondary sense of "use profane language" (early 15c.) probably developed from the notion of "invoke sacred names profanely or blasphemously" (mid-14c.)."

Note that there are so many examples of benign or sacred words becoming "bad language" in all languages, that the only striking thing here is perhaps that the original meaning is still used.


JAL

[Raphael]

I'm not sure what connects them. And, one is fairly solemn, and one is fairly non-solemn.

Etyomonline says "The secondary sense of "use profane language" (early 15c.) probably developed from the notion of "invoke sacred names profanely or blasphemously" (mid-14c.)."

Note that there are so many examples of benign or sacred words becoming "bad language" in all languages, that the only striking thing here is perhaps that the original meaning is still used.


JAL

Thank you!

[Raphael]

Does anyone else have the impression that in British English, "Robin" is more likely to be seen as a men's given name, while in US English, it's more likely to be seen as a women's given name?