Zompist Bboard Again

Linguoboy wrote: ↑Tue Feb 09, 2021 9:55 am

Raphael wrote: ↑Tue Feb 09, 2021 9:26 amThank you, everyone! A school that covers only two years strikes me as kinda weird.

I think it makes sense in large school districts. Like if your high school serves 1000 students, your junior high would serve about 500. I've attended more than one school with a student body a fraction that size.

The first high school I went to had over 5,000 students, but the middle schools had numbers that were a little more reasonable. Ah the American school system!

Linguoboy wrote: ↑Tue Feb 09, 2021 2:04 pm

Rounin Ryuuji wrote: ↑Tue Feb 09, 2021 10:42 amThe county where I grew up had one public high school (two middle schools) until something like 2005 (I graduated 2006, yes, I'm old), and an enormous student body. I think breaking that up into smaller units would've been very nice. There were two or three private religious schools that did the whole K-12 thing, too, but I wouldn't trust them.

With the exception of kindergarten, I went to nothing but private religious schools until I came to college. (My university was private and technically religiously-affiliated, but not so as anyone would notice. Some wag termed it "A Baptist university where Jewish professors teach atheist students Thomas Aquinas." That's not quite as true as it once was, but it's not wholly off the mark either.) My high school was a college prep which included a junior high (grades 7-8). Not everyone went all six years but a substantial number of students (at least 40% of my graduating class of 147) did.

I didn't mean to say all nonsectarian institutions were subpar or anything, it was these specific ones I didn't think were trustworthy.

Rounin Ryuuji wrote: ↑Tue Feb 09, 2021 3:24 pmI didn't mean to say all nonsectarian institutions were subpar or anything, it was these specific ones I didn't think were trustworthy.

I didn't read it that way. Just pointing out another possibility between having grade 7 and 8 lumped together with lower grades and having a self-standing junior high.

I'm not sure how common this is. I tried looking at the websites for some other private Catholic schools in my hometown and they don't seem to have associated junior high schools like mine did.

Oh, well then. I would ask how you felt it worked by comparison, but I don't think that's answerable.

Rounin Ryuuji wrote: ↑Tue Feb 09, 2021 3:24 pm I didn't mean to say all nonsectarian institutions were subpar or anything, it was these specific ones I didn't think were trustworthy.

At least here, for families that live in the city because they're required to (many city positions require one to actually live in the city), many of them send their kids to Catholic schools rather than the public school district because they have a better reputation as a whole (even though many of these families aren't Catholic at all).

Rounin Ryuuji wrote: ↑Tue Feb 09, 2021 9:38 pmOh, well then. I would ask how you felt it worked by comparison, but I don't think that's answerable.

How what worked?

My older brother attended the same high school but our two younger siblings went to a public high school. The youngest went to a public junior high as well. We did compare notes on our experiences a lot.

But this is well off topic for a thread on the English language.

I'm a bit confused about how written English handles quotes within quotes.

In German, it's pretty simple - the outer quotes are marked by quotation marks, and the inner quotes are marked by apostrophes:

"Und dann sagte er: 'Das kann ich nicht machen!'"

But in English, I'm pretty sure I remember seeing both apostrophes for the outer quotes and quotation marks for the inner quotes, and quotation marks for the outer quotes and apostrophes for the inner quotes. So which one is it?

Raphael wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 12:50 pm I'm a bit confused about how written English handles quotes within quotes.

In German, it's pretty simple - the outer quotes are marked by quotation marks, and the inner quotes are marked by apostrophes:

"Und dann sagte er: 'Das kann ich nicht machen!'"

But in English, I'm pretty sure I remember seeing both apostrophes for the outer quotes and quotation marks for the inner quotes, and quotation marks for the outer quotes and apostrophes for the inner quotes. So which one is it?

The standard approach in English is the same as that you mentioned for German (even though I thought that German lowered the starting quotes or used guillemets).

Travis B. wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 1:03 pm(even though I thought that German lowered the starting quotes or used guillemets).

Yes, you're right, it does - I simplified things a bit for my German sample quote. Thank you!

Raphael wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 12:50 pmBut in English, I'm pretty sure I remember seeing both apostrophes for the outer quotes and quotation marks for the inner quotes, and quotation marks for the outer quotes and apostrophes for the inner quotes. So which one is it?

It could vary depending on which style guide someone is following (or whether they're following one at all).

Raphael wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 12:50 pm I'm a bit confused about how written English handles quotes within quotes.

In German, it's pretty simple - the outer quotes are marked by quotation marks, and the inner quotes are marked by apostrophes:

"Und dann sagte er: 'Das kann ich nicht machen!'"

But in English, I'm pretty sure I remember seeing both apostrophes for the outer quotes and quotation marks for the inner quotes, and quotation marks for the outer quotes and apostrophes for the inner quotes. So which one is it?

In American typography, it’s usual to use double quotation marks first, and single quotation marks (where the closing mark looks like an apostrophe) for the first level of embedded quotes (further embedding may alternate, I think?). Single quotation marks are sometimes used in non-embedded contexts for miscellaneous reasons (varying by style guide).

In British typography, it was traditionally edit: i misremembered—at some times and places usual to use single quotation marks first, and double quotation marks for the first level of embedding.
I don’t know if this has changed at all in recent years.

Thank you!

Can someone give an example of a (common) English word with an intervocalic R, that's pronounced [˞˞ ] in GA or [∅] in RP, please?

Qwynegold wrote: ↑Sat Feb 20, 2021 9:41 am Can someone give an example of a (common) English word with an intervocalic R, that's pronounced [˞˞ ] in GA or [∅] in RP, please?

The canonical example is "furry", which is reasonably common. I merge /ʌr/ and /ɜːr/, so I can't easily think of another example.

I'm not sure I understand what ∅ means in this context. From looking it up, it looks as though it means it's not pronounced, which wouldn't be true for "furry".

flicky wrote: ↑Sat Feb 20, 2021 10:26 am I'm not sure I understand what ∅ means in this context. From looking it up, it looks as though it means it's not pronounced, which wouldn't be true for "furry".

Oh, I (mis)interpreted that as /ø/, which sounds rather like /ɜ/ and is easier to type. I didn't notice that it was capitalized, so you're probably right.

I'm not sure I understand Qwynegold's request. The answer might be honorary, which I normally pronounce [ˈɒnəɹɪ], but I don't think the syncopation is RP.

Qwynegold wrote: ↑Sat Feb 20, 2021 9:41 amCan someone give an example of a (common) English word with an intervocalic R, that's pronounced [˞˞ ] in GA or [∅] in RP, please?

Have mercy on an old man use your words. That just looks like a really tiny ㄴ to me.

Qwynegold wrote: ↑Sat Feb 20, 2021 9:41 am Can someone give an example of a (common) English word with an intervocalic R, that's pronounced [˞˞ ] in GA or [∅] in RP, please?

I too am confused - why would intervocalic R not be pronounced in RP?

Intervocalic /r/ might drop at a morpheme boundary. If saw and soar are homophonous, sawing and soaring need not be, so insertion failure might be unetymological. The distinction destabilises the insertion, and I don't think its 100% in RPish or estuarine British English even when etymologically required. In a word like Myanmarese, as the 'r' was never intended to be sounded, so you might find commonwealth people who don't insert it. Likewise, one might find no insertion in Khmer[ic]ise - final 'r' is also silent in the Khmer language, but not in Northern Khmer.

I thin there may be some phonetic simplification of -arian (e.g librarian or vegetarian) - [eəɹjn̥̩̩] doesn't fit the sound pattern of RPish speech well.